Introduction
There has been growing concerns about the use of nuclear weapons in spite of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), which is considered as a great millstone for the abolition of nuclear weapons, came into effect in 2021. Although, many peace groups are appealing for the horror of nuclear weapons, many politicians are beginning to consider that possessing such horrible weapons can avoid being invaded. Only emphasizing the horror of the nuclear weapons cannot bring the abolition.
Therefore, a new multilateral treaty is proposed. It prescribes sanctions against a state which actually uses nuclear weapons in a war. If some state actually used nuclear weapons, sanctions which will be imposed to the state are discussed and decided in an Emergency Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly. However, since there should not be no sanctions to the state, at least the smallest sanctions should be prescribed beforehand. Moreover, it can be predicted that the permanent members of the United Nations cannot agree to impose sanctions.
Proposed articles for the new treaty
Since it is difficult to impose a military punishment to a state which possess nuclear weapons, the treaty consists of the following three articles as the sanctions.
- Each state shall stop every trade between the state which uses nuclear weapons. This is in effect for more than 20 years.
- Each state shall prohibit the entry of every people from the state which uses nuclear weapons, except for political exiles. This is in effect for more than 10 years.
- If a state breaks the article 1 or 2, all the other states shall stop every trade between the state. This is in effect for 3 years.
The treaty does not target any nuclear-weapon state. Since the treaty does not prohibit the possession and the development of nuclear weapons, any nuclear-weapon state can become a member. A member state must impose the sanctions on a state which actually uses nuclear weapons even if a state which is attacked by nuclear weapons is a potential enemy to the member state.
The reason for the article 3 is to eliminate resistance to impose the sanctions. If a state which used nuclear weapons is exporting foods or resources, it may be difficult to impose the sanctions without a penalty.
Concerning a retaliatory nuclear attack
The sanctions should also be imposed to a state which makes a retaliatory nuclear attack in response to being nuclear attacked. The reason is that a claim of being attacked may be a clever fake in order to make a nuclear attack. Also, the escalation of the retaliatory nuclear attacks must never be tolerated.
However, in return for enduring the retaliation, the following article should be added.
4. Each state shall provide every-possible rescue and assistance to a state which is attacked by a nuclear weapon.
This is similar to the article 6 of TPNW. Even if a nuclear attacked state is a potential enemy, every member state should give every support to the state.
How to make the treaty
If a small number of states becomes the member, the sanctions are not effective. Therefore, it is efficient if the proposed treaty will be prescribed as an additional article of NPT or TPNW. However, since the proposed treaty does not ban the possess of nuclear weapons, it cannot be an article of TPNW.
Therefore, it would be suitable to be prescribed as an additional article of NPT. However, since this requires the support of all the member states including nuclear weapon states, they probably do not support the idea because the treaty makes it difficult to use nuclear weapons. Therefore, it should be prescribed as a new multilateral treaty among the states which support the idea.
What can be expected
If more than 150 states become the member in the distant future, even if it takes more than 100 years, the sanctions become quite effective. Then, there is no point in possessing nuclear weapons.
If a member state is importing large amounts of resources or foods from a state which uses nuclear weapons, the member state may suffer a shortage of them.
Therefore, all the member states would need to import them from non-nuclear weapon states with a priority over nuclear weapon states. Consequently, nuclear weapon states would need to abolish nuclear weapons in order not to decrease the export of them.
The proposals presented above may be subject to revision by the discussions with people who wish to abolish nuclear weapons.
If you have a message, please send an e-mail to:
