A nuclear-weapon-free world: from non-proliferation to abolition

Unless nuclear weapons are not prohibited by international law, unless they are not totally abolished, the threat and danger of nuclear weapons cannot be eliminated. Though the size of nuclear inventory has drastically decreased compared to the Cold War period, the remaining 15000 nuclear weapons can destroy our planet several times over. The NPT of 1968 played an important role to limit vertical and horizontal proliferation. Thanks to this treaty,  five  NWFZs  have  been  established  that  cover  the  territories  of  more  than 100 countries. In addition, possibilities of setting up a non-traditional single-state NWFZ have opened thanks to Mongolia’s efforts to institutionalize its single-state NWFZ since 1992. In the past, the WHO and UN General Assembly brought the issue of the legality of the use of nuclear weapons before the International Court of Justice in 1993  and 1996 respectively. Though  both attempts were unsuccessful, it gave hope         to many people that the world can one day prohibit nuclear weapons by international law. The last big achievement on the abolitionist front was the fact that UN General Assembly finally adopted a landmark resolution on 27 October 2016, to launch negotiations in March 2017 on a treaty outlawing nuclear weapons.

Introduction

A nuclear-weapon-free world has been one of the biggest dreams of the mankind ever since the USA had dropped atomic bombs on two Japanese cities in August 1945. In Hiroshima between 80,000–140,000 people, in Nagasaki about 74,000 [1] people were killed and thousands more suffered from radiation sickness and other injuries as result of the deadliest weapon the world had ever witnessed.

But it is also true that despite the enormous destructive and uncontrollable nature of nuclear weapons, many countries tried to acquire nuclear weapons in the name of protecting their national security. Within just two decades after the first nuclear explosion, four countries: the Soviet Union (1949), Great Britain (1952), France (1960), and PRC (1964) joined the nuclear club. At the same time, the reliance on nuclear arms grew astronomically. During Eisenhower’s presidency, for example, the US stockpile leaped from 1,400 to 20,000 warheads, while the Soviet arsenal grew from 120 to 1,000 warheads [2].

When the Soviet Union collapsed and the Cold War ended, many people beleived that this was also the end of nuclear belligerency. But as long as nuclear weapons exist, so does the danger of a nuclear war.        As US president Barak Obama wrote in Washington Postop-ed, Of all the threats to global security and peace, the most dangerous is the proliferation and potential use of nuclear weapons» [3]. As of 2016, nine states-the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea possessed 15 395 nuclear weapons, of which 4120 were deployed with operational forces.  Roughly  1800  of  these  weapons  are  kept  in  a  state  of  high  operational  alert  [4].  If American  president recieves  information that  says  «our  country is  under  nuclear  attack», he  has just  3 minutes to decide whether or not to press the button“ [5].

Threatsand risks of nuclear weapons

Since the end of the Cold War, the number of nuclear weapons has decreased significantly. However, the decrease in the number of nuclear weapons has not reduced the threat of a nuclear war. As Dr. John T.Rourke from the Connecticut University wrote «The atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki demonstrate that humans have the ability and the will to use weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, it is naive     to imagine that nuclear war will never happen» [5].

As of January 2016, the USA had 1930 deployed nuclear warheads and 2500 other warheads [6], while Russia had 1790 deployed warheads and 2800 other warheads [4]. Needless to say that such amount of nukes can extinguish our planet several times over. As Greenpeace pointed out «There is no such thing as a small  nuclear explosion, any nuclear explosion will have catastrophic consequences for all living things on the planet» [7]. The below table shows the inventory of world nuclear forces in 2015.

T a b l e

World Nuclear Forces, 2015 

Source: SIPRI Yearbook 2016 [4]. 

In 2015, the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) defined several factors that contributed to the likelihood    of accident or miscalculation that could lead to nuclear use. The list included:

• A severe deficit of trust,
• Irreconcilable narratives and threat perceptions,
• Domestic political imperatives,
• Broken channels of communication,
• Alliance politics,
• Failing safeguards to prevent nuclear use,
• Conventional force disparity, and
• Eroding nuclear expertise [8].

Other risks such as technical failures, human errors, threats from hackers and terrorists can be added    to the list. In short, we must bear in our mind that one of the above risks may lead to nuclear use which will bring catastrophic consequences to the humanity. In fact, there have been many close calls in the past. Since 1950, for instance, there have been 32 nuclear weapon accidents, known as «Broken Arrows». A Broken Arrow   is defined as an unexpected event involving nuclear weapons that result in the accidental launching, firing, detonating, theft or loss of the weapon. To date, six nuclear weapons have been lost and never recovered [9].

In addition, some nuclear powers are shifting to a new nuclear doctrine which classifies nuclear weapons as a part of regular weapons arsenal to be used whenever there is a «justification». USA, Great Britain, France and to some extent Russia have declared these new doctrines. China has not followed this move and keeps its No First Use doctrine. A few years ago, US leaders talked openly of a possible «preventive nuclear war», for instance against Iran [10].

Nuclear non-proliferation efforts

Nuclear non-proliferation treaty

By the 1960s, both horizontal and vertical proliferation of nuclear weapons, alarmed the international community to take concrete measures against that dangerous course. In 1963, in a press conference, US President John Kennedy warned «I see the possibility in the 1970s of the president of the United States having to face a world in which 15 or 20 or 25 nations may have nuclear weapons. I regard that as the greatest possible danger and hazard».  In fact, Kennedy made  this statement  one month  after  a secret  Department of Defense memorandum assessed that eight countries — Canada, China, India, Israel, Italy, Japan, Sweden, and West Germany — would likely have the ability to produce nuclear weapons within 10 years. The study also calculated that, due to diminishing costs of nuclear programs, several more states would likely be able  to acquire nuclear weapons, especially if unrestricted testing continued. The risks of  such proliferation, which the existing nuclear powers sought to curtail or prevent, largely served as an impetus for drafting  the NPT. Today the IAEA assesses that nearly 30 states are capable of developing nuclear weapons, but only nine states are known to possess them thanks to the NPT [11].

The ideas that formed the basis of the NPT were first laid out in the UN General Assembly Resolution 1665 which was unanimously approved on December 4, 1961. The resolution was based on the earlier Irish draft resolution and called for negotiations to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to additional states.    The resolution says that countries already having nuclear weapons would «undertake to refrain from relinquishing control» of them to others and would refrain «from transmitting information for their manufacture to States not possessing» them. Countries without nuclear weapons would agree not to receive or manufacture them [11].

After several years of intense diplomatic negotiations, the NPT opened for signature in 1968 and entered into force in 1970. It is a landmark international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and  to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament. In 1995, the Treaty was extended indefinitely. Currently 191 states have joined the NPT, including the five nuclearweapon States [12].

More countries have ratified the NPT than any other arms limitation and disarmament agreement, a testament to the Treaty’s significance. There is only one country North Korea, which acceded in 1985 but never came into compliance, announced its withdrawal from the NPT in 2003, following detonation of nuclear devices in violation of  core obligations  of  the  treaty.  Four  other UN member  states have  never  accepted the NPT, three of which are thought  to  possess  nuclear  weapons: India, Israel,  and Pakistan.  In  addi-  tion, South Sudan, founded in 2011, has not joined the treaty.

Nuclear-weapon-free zones

Nuclear-weapon-free zones (NWFZ) play an important role in promotingnuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, as well as regional and international peace and security. Article 7 of the NPT states: «Nothing in this Treaty affects the right of any group of States to conclude regional treaties in order to assure the total absence of nuclear weapons  in their respective territories».  In  this spirit, the  first NWFZ was established  in Latin America and the Caribbean by the Treaty of Tlatelolco in 1967.

In its Resolution 3472 B (1975), the General Assembly defines a NWFZ as «…any zone recognized as such by the General Assembly of the United Nations, which any group of States, in the free exercises of their sovereignty, has established by virtue of a treaty or convention whereby: (a) The statute of total absence       of nuclear weapons to which the zone shall be subject, including the procedure for the delimitation of the zone, is defined; (b) An international system of verification and control is established to guarantee compliance with the obligations deriving from that statute» [13].

Though each NWFZ has particular characteristics, they have similar goals and objectives:

• To prevent the development of new nuclear-armed states or capabilities in their region, achieved through bans on production, testing, use, or other acquisition of nuclear
• To keep nuclear weapons out of the zone (or, in some cases, to allow sovereign decisions by governments about whether foreign countries can ship nuclear materials through their territory).
• To prevent nuclear-weapon states from using or threatening to use nuclear weapons against countries in the

Currently, there are five NWFZs, covering territories of more than 100 states in the world. The following treaties form the basis for these zones:

1. Treaty of Tlatelolco (Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear in Latin America and the Caribbean);
2. Treaty of Rarotonga (South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty);
3. Treaty of Bangkok (Treaty on the Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone);
4. Treaty of Pelindaba (African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty);
5. Treaty of Semiplatinsk (Central Asian Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty).

The Treaty of Tlatelolco of 1967 entered into force in 1969. It has served as a model for all future NWFZ agreements. On 23 October 2002, the Tlatelolco Treaty came into full force throughout the region    of Latin America and the Caribbean when Cuba, the only state which had not ratified the treaty, deposited its instrument of ratification. Currently, all 33 states of the region have signed and ratified the treaty.

The Treaty of Rarotonga, which has 13 member states, entered into force in 1986. Three dependent territories not located within the zone (Marshall Islands Republic, Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau) are not parties to the Treaty although eligible to be Parties. If these territories decide to join the SPNFZ Treaty  in  the  future,  the  SPNFZ  area  would  be  enlarged  to  incorporate  the  territory  of  each  new  party. 

The SPNFZ contributes to limiting the threat posed by nuclear weapons and serves to strengthen the NPT regime and nuclear non-proliferation [14].

The Treaty of Bangkok of 1995 entered into force in 1997. All 10 member states of ASEAN have  signed and ratified the treaty, which obliges its members not to develop, manufacture or otherwise acquire, possess or have control over nuclear weapons. The treaty includes a protocol under which the five nuclearweapon states recognized by the NPT (who are also the five permanent members of the UN Security Council) undertake to respect the Treaty and do not contribute to a violation of it by State parties. Currently, none of the nuclear-weapon states have signed this protocol [15].

The Treaty of Pelindaba was signed in Cairo on 11 April 1996 by 47 of the 53 African states. The protocols were signed at the same time by the nuclear-weapon states except for Russia, which sought clarification on the status of the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia (controlled by the United Kingdom and formerly used as a base for nuclear weapons by the United States). The Treaty entered into force on 15 July 2009 when Burundi became the 28th state to deposit its instrument of ratification or accession.

The Treaty of Semiplatinsk of 2006commits its 5 signatories (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan) to  refrain  from  developing,  acquiring  or  possessing  nuclear  weapons. The treaty entered into force in 2009. All five nuclear-weapon states signed the Protocol to the treaty on May 6, 2014, which provides legally binding assurances not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against CANWFZ Treaty parties.

Map. Nuclear-weapon-free areas (Demarcation of nuclear-weapon-free zones, nuclear-weapon-free status and nuclear-weapon-free geographical regions) (Source: UNODA)

Other NWFZs have been proposed for such regions as Central Europe, Northern Europe, the Baltic region, the Middle East, South Asia and Northeast Asia, but have not been materialized yet. However, in terms of horizontal proliferation, NWFZs have dramatically reduced the areas of potential nuclear weapon proliferation.

Mongolia’s Nuclear-Weapon-FreeStatus

On 25th September, 1992 at the United Nations 47th General Assembly Ochirbat  Punsalmaa, President  of Mongolia declared Mongolia’s territory a single-state nuclear-weapon-free zone and announced that Mongolia would work to have that status internationally guaranteed [16]. The objective of the initiative was to ban stationing of nuclear weapons or parts of such weapons system on the Mongolian territory and, in return, acquire security assurances from the five nuclear-weapon states [17].

This was the first bold move of Mongolia’s new independent foreign policy, which had been dictated  by  Moscow for 70 years for the sake of «socialist commonwealth».The fact that at the height of Sino-Soviet split over 100 000 Soviet troops were stationed in Mongolia, also pushed the idea of being free from the risks of being drawn into possible conflicts of its nuclear-armed neighbors [18].

Thefirst National Security Concept of Mongolia,adopted in 1994, defined one of the ways and means   to ensure the security of the existence of Mongolia is «to ensure the nuclear-weapons-free status of Mongolia at the international level and make it an important element of strengthening the country's security by political means».

As noted Mongolian scholar Enkhsaikhan Jargalsaikhan: «When Mongolia’s single-State NWFZ status is internationally recognized and legally guaranteed, it would in fact be its internationally accepted regime with all the benefits that come with NWFZ status, including security assurances, more rigid than NPT verification regime, support in peaceful uses of the achievements of nuclear energy and science. As such,      it could also serve as an example for some other states that due to their geographical or geopolitical location cannot form part of traditional NWFZs [19]. Moreover, Mongolia’s NWFZ status can be an important element of Northeast Asia security» [20].

In 2000, the State Great Hural (parliament) of Mongolia adopted the Law of Mongolia on its Nuclearweapon-free Status as well as Resolution 19 on measures to be taken in connection with the adoption of the law [21]. The law reinforces commitments of Mongolia, undertaken by the NPT. Moreover, it also committed Mongolia to prohibit stationing or transporting nuclear weapon and its components, transiting it or dumping nuclear weapons grade radioactive material or their dangerous wastes on the territory or in the vicinity   of Mongolia.

In 1998, thanks to Mongolia’s tireless diplomatic efforts, the UN General Assembly adopted the Resolution 53/77D, entitled «Mongolia’s International Security and Nuclear-Weapon-Free Status», which welcomed Mongolia’s initiative and invited member states, including the five nuclear-weapon states, to work with Mongolia in taking the necessary measures to consolidate and strengthen its status. This was followed by theGeneral Assembly adopting successive resolutions that recognized Mongolia’s NWFS and aimed        at consolidating this status in every two years. In addition, the UN Secretary General submitted a biannual report to the General Assembly on the implementation of these resolutions.

Another important milestone towards institutionalizing Mongolia’s  nuclear-weapon-free  status (NWFS) took place in October 2000, when five nuclear-weapon states (P5) issued a joint statement providing nuclear security assurances to Mongolia in connection with its NWFS [22]. In this statement the P5 pledged to refrain from using or threatening to use nuclear weapons against Mongolia, and to come to Mongolia’s assistance in case such use or threat occurred [23]. Mongolia welcomed the statement as a manifestation of political will on the part of the P5 to implement the provisions of resolution 53/77D and as a first important step in institutionalizing its nuclear-weapon-free status.

On 17 September 2012, the Permanent Representatives to the United Nations of the five  nuclearweapon states — the United States, Russia, China, United Kingdom and France — and the Permanent Representative of Mongolia to the United Nations signed parallel political declarations regarding Mongolia’s NWFS. As a part of the declaration, the P5 reaffirmed the joint statement on security assurances they made  in connection with Mongolia’s NWFS at the UNGA on 5 October 2000. In addition, the P5 also affirmed their intent to respect Mongolia’s NWFS and not to contribute to any act that would violate it. As a part       of the parallel political declaration, Mongolia confirmed that it has and will continue to fully comply with its commitments as a non-nuclear-weapon state (NNWS) party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and pursuant to its own domestic law of 3 February 2000, has the domestic legal status   of being nuclear weapon free. Mongolia welcomed the 2012 P5 joint declaration as a valuable commitment tailored to its geopolitical location and relevant to its actual security needs. When providing the assurances, however the P5 have pointed out that they would have difficulties in providing legally based assurances, since that would set a precedent [17].

Though the P5 recognized Mongolia as a ‘unique case’, they were and still are hesitant to acknowledge it as a single-State NWFZ since, in their view, that might set a precedent that could discourage others from establishing traditional NWFZs [23]. On the other hand, all NWFZ s have not only fully recognized Mongolia as a nuclear-weapon-free state but also have welcomed it into their ranks.

Abolition ofnuclear weapons

Though the human race has not used nuclear weapons directly against each other since the devastating atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a danger of nuclear war will continue to exist unless nuclear weapons are not completely prohibited and abolished by international law. 

The first step towards abolition of nuclearweapons was taken in 1961, when the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution declaring that that the use of nuclear weapons was illegal. 55 states (consisting mainly of communist and Third World countries) voted in favour of the resolution, 20 states (mainly Western countries) voted against and 26 states (mainly Latin American countries) abstained [24; 346]. A General Assembly resolution of this type is an evidence of customary law and the voting figures for this resolution showed the absence of generally accepted custom.

The issue of the legality of the use of nuclear weapons was brought before the International Court         of Justice on the basis of two requests for an advisory opinion, one filed by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1993, the other filed by the UN General Assembly in 1996. On 8 July 1996, the Court delivered  its advisory opinion on both requests. The request made by the WHO was dismissed (by 11 votes to 3) with the reasoning that under the ‘principle of specialty’ which governs international organizations and limits  their powers, the WHO had no competence to deal with the legality of the use of nuclear weapons, even       in view of their health and environmental effects. With regard to the request made by the General Assembly, the Court found that there is neither a customary or conventional law ‘any specific authorization of the threat or use of nuclear weapons’ (unanimously), but also no comprehensive and universal prohibition (by 11 votes to 3).

The court further replied (unanimously) that ‘a threat or use of force by means of nuclear weapons that is contrary to Article 2, paragraph 4 of the United Nations Charter and that fails to meet all the requirements of Article 51, is unlawful’. The most controversial finding (by seven votes to seven, by the President’s casting vote) is rather mysterious:

«It follows from the above mentioned requirements that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law, applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law. However, in view of the current state of international law and       of the elements of facts at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitely whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defense, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake» [24; 349].

If at that time, the ICJwould have been able to rule that the threat or use of nuclear weapons were unlawful, it could have been a turning point in the history, making tremendous contribution to protecting international peace and security, as  well as  promoting wellbeing and  prosperity of the  humanity. Because  all 15 judges of the ICJ are appointed for nine years mandate, another composition of judges may rule a different decision regarding the legality of nuclear weapon [25].

Some peopleargue that although the use of nuclear weapons can bring catastrophic consequences, they can also give an enormous military advantage. For instance, Dr.Peter Malanczuk from the Erasmus University wrote: «If nuclear weapons had not been used against Japan, the war against Japan in 1945 might have lasted at least another year» [24, 347]. But like many other people, I think it is immoral and inhumane to justify the use of nuclear weapons in any circumstance.

In recent years, international civil society has become a powerful force in the fight against nuclear weapons. One such example is the International  Campaign  to  Abolish  Nuclear  Weapons (ICAN),  a coalition   of non-government organizations in 100 countries advocating for a strong and effective nuclear weapon ban treaty. ICAN originated in Melbourne, Australia, in 2007. Thanks to their relentless efforts and strong advocacy, the UN General Assembly finally adopted a landmark resolution on 27 October 2016, to launch negotiations in March 2017 on a treaty outlawing nuclear weapons. Despite arm-twisting by a number of nucleararmed states, the resolution was adopted in a landslide. A total of 57 nations were co-sponsors, with Austria, Brazil, Ireland, Mexico, Nigeria and South Africa taking the lead in drafting the resolution. 123 nations voted in favour of the resolution, with 38 against and 16 abstaining.

The UN vote came just hours after the European Parliament adopted its own resolutionon this subject — 415 in favour and 124 against, with 74 abstentions — inviting European Union member states to «participate constructively» in next year’s negotiations.n Monday, 15 Nobel Peace Prize winners urged nations        to support the negotiations and to bring them «to a timely and successful conclusion so that we can proceed rapidly toward the final elimination of this existential threat to humanity» [26].

Conclusion

Unless nuclear weapons are not prohibited by international law, unless they are not totally abolished, the threat and danger of nuclear weapons cannot be eliminated. Though the size of nuclear inventory has drastically decreased compared to the Cold War period, the remaining 15000 nuclear weapons can destroy our planet several times over.

The NPT of 1968 played an important role to limit vertical and horizontal proliferation. Without this treaty, the world could have been a more dangerous place with 30 or more nuclear-weapon states. Thanks    to this treaty, five NWFZs have been established that cover the territories of more than 100 countries. In addition, possibilities of setting up a non-traditional single-state NWFZ have opened thanks to Mongolia’s efforts to institutionalize its single-state NWFZ since 1992.

In the past, the WHO and UN General Assembly brought the issue of the legality of the use of nuclear weapons before the International Court of Justice in 1993 and 1996 respectively. Though both attempts were unsuccessful, it gave hope to many people that the world can one day prohibit nuclear weapons by international law.

The last big achievement on the abolitionist front was the fact that UN General Assembly finally adopted a landmark resolution on 27 October 2016, to launch negotiations in March 2017 on a treaty outlawing nuclear weapons. Despite arm-twisting by a number  of nuclear-armed states, the resolution was adopted in    a landslide. 123 nations voted in favour of the resolution, with 38 against and 16 abstaining.

It is my great hope that the negotiation of the treaty banning nuclear weapons will be successful and    the world will be free of nuclear-weapons, the deadliest weapon ever created. 

References

1. by Maj Gen R.S. Mehta (Retd.), Encyclopaedia of Nuclear Arms Control and Non-proliferation. Vol. I, Pentagon Press, 2007. — P. 29.
2. Sverre Lodgaard, Nuclear Arms Disarmament and Non-proliferation: Towards a Nuclear-weapon-free world?”, Routledge, 2011. — P.
3. Washington Post, Obama: How We Can Make Our Vision Of A World Without Nuclear Weapons A Reality, 2016-03-30. Retrieved from https://wwashingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-how-we-can-make-our-vision-of-a-world-without-nuclearweapons-a-reality/2016/03/30/3e156e2c-f693-11e5-9804-537defcc3cf6_story.html?utm_term=.9bf2b1e2196e
4. SIPRI Yearbook 2016 Retrieved from https://www.sipri.org/sites/default/files/YB16-Summary-ENG.pdf
5. Von Gero von Randow, Countdown für die Hölle: Wie entscheidet ein Präsident über den Atomkrieg? DIE ZEIT 47/2016, 10. November 2016. Retrived from http://www.zeit.de/2016/47/atomkrieg-us-praesident-entscheidung-lua
6. US Vice President Joe Biden announced on January 11, 2017 that the U.S. has cut an additional 553 nuclear weapons from  its stockpile, bringing the Pentagon’s nuclear weapons total to 4,018 warheads. Retrived from http://www.ploughshares.org/issuesanalysis/early-warning/biden-announces-independent-reduction-us-nuclear-arsenal
7. Greenpeace International, Abolish nuclear weapons, 18 April, 2006. Retrieved from http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/peace/abolish-nuclear-weapons/
8. NTI Paper, Rising Nuclear Dangers: Steps to Reduce Risks in the Euro-Atlantic Region, December 2016. Retrieved from http://www.nti.org/media/documents/NTI_Rising_Nuclear_Dangers_Paper_FINAL_12-5-16.pdf
9. Broken Arrows: Nuclear Weapons Accidents. Retrieved from http://www.atomicarchive.com/Almanac/shtml
10. See IPPNW North Asian Regional Meeting: Documents and Proceedings, 21–22 June, 2007, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia,
11. Arms Control Association, Timeline of the NPT. Retrieved from https://warmscontrol.org/system/files/ NPT_Timeline.pdf
12. Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Retrieved from https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/npt/
13. United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA), Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/nwfz/
14. Treaty of Rarotonga (South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty). Retrieved from http://www.nti.org/learn/treaties-andregimes/south-pacific-nuclear-free-zone-spnfz-treaty-rarotonga/
15. Southeast Asian Nuclear-Weapon-Free-Zone (SEANWFZ) Treaty (Bangkok Treaty). Retrieved from http://www.nti.org/learn/treaties-and-regimes/southeast-asian-nuclear-weapon-free-zone-seanwfz-treaty-bangkok-treaty/
16. Аltantsetseg, N., Enkhsaihan, J., Bayasagalan, S., & Oyunsuren, D. (2008). The role of nuclear-weapon-free zone to ensure Mongolian national security. UB.
17. Statement by Dr. J. Enkhsaikhan, Chairman of Blue Banner on «Mongolia’s nuclear-weapon-free status: a regional dimension» September 15, 2014 Tokyo, Japan. Retrieved from http://www.recna.nagasaki-u.ac.jp/recna/bd/files/AmbassadorEnkhsaikhanNWFS-and-regional-dimension.pdf
18. Morris (2005). Modern Mongolia: From Khans to Commissars to Capitalists. University of California Press. — P. 8.
19. Blue Banner NGO, Single State NWFZ: Progress and Ulaanbaatar. 2007. 67.
20. Enkhsaikhan, J. (2006). Mongolia’s non-nuclear-status-an important element of Northeast Asia security. UB. 15 Februar. — P. 10.
21. Parliament's report on the progress of the implementation of its resolution Mongolian Law on nuclear weapons. UB. 2008. 22  United Nations A/55/530-S/2000/1052.
22. Jargalsaikhany Enkhsaikhan, Mongolia's Status: The Case for a Unique Approach, Asian Affairs: an American Review, 27, 4, 2001.
23. Peter Malanczuk, Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law, 7th revised edition, Routledge — P. 346–365.
24. Edited by Kim Euikon and Oyunsuren Damdinsuren, Beyond the Horizon of Turbulent Asia: Issues and Studies, Compilation of Selected Papers of Inha-NUM Joint Conferences. Ulaanbaatar 2016. — P.
25. UN votes to outlaw nuclear weapons in 2017 October 27, 2016. Retrieved from http://www.icanw.org/campaign-news/unvotes-to-outlaw-nuclear-weapons-in-2017