Japan Institute of International Affairs
"Atoms for a Sustainable Future" Taskforce, Phase II

Policy Recommendations for Strengthening Global Non-Proliferation Architecture to Facilitate Peaceful Use without Increasing the Risk of Nuclear Proliferation

April 2010

Premises
As the use of nuclear energy expands worldwide, the risk of nuclear proliferation would also rise under the existing modality of the nuclear non-proliferation regime. The spread of sensitive technology related to the nuclear fuel cycle would be the most critical issue that we have to address in reducing the risk of proliferation. Without appropriate measures to control the proliferation risk arising from the expansion of nuclear energy and technology worldwide, the world would become a more dangerous place.

However, it is not easy to find a solution. Article IV of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) prescribes the 'inalienable right' of peaceful use of nuclear energy. This is normally interpreted as allowing state parties to the NPT to conduct research and development of, or have access to, sensitive nuclear fuel cycle technology per se as well as to benefits from such technology, under the condition of full compliance with Articles I, II, and III of the NPT. If it were possible to constrain the spread of sensitive technology through an approach of denying access to such technologies by restricting the transfer of technology, this would allow us to contain the risk of proliferation. However, there are several concerns. First, indigenous development of fuel cycle technology cannot be prevented as information on such technology would be relatively easily accessible. Second, clandestine acquisition of technology would occur, of dual use items in particular. Such concerns remind us of the difficulty in containing proliferation risks at the entry point of the proliferation cycle. Third, intensifying restrictions on technology transfer through such a 'technology access denial' approach might cause a serious political polarization and create more nuclear 'haves' and 'have-nots,' which could undermine the reliability and credibility of the existing non-proliferation regime.

Therefore, it is important to establish a set of criteria for international transfer of nuclear fuel cycle technology and possession of a nuclear fuel cycle program, in combination with strengthened safeguard mechanisms for detection, verification, and enforcement against non-compliance. The criteria-based approach would allow states that meet predetermined criteria to possess a nuclear fuel cycle. While the criteria-based approach has a restrictive nature, it does not categorically deny access to fuel cycle technology. It should be universally applicable, not only to non-nuclear weapons states but also to nuclear weapons states, to supply-side states as well as demand-side ones. The Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) has already been moving toward a criteria-based approach for transfer of enrichment and reprocessing facilities/equipment and technology. What is important is decoupling, as much as possible, the promotion of peaceful use from the risks of nuclear terrorism, diversion of nuclear materials and technology to military purposes and clandestine activities as well as nuclear accidents, without relaxing the conditions for nuclear trade.

The point, for the purpose of non-proliferation, is how to effectively contain latent intentions with strategic motives by preventing covert/overt acquisition of technology using objective and universal rules and criteria. At the same time, in order to avoid being exploited in authorizing the acquisition of technology for ill-purposed activities, strict and severe measures must be taken against violations of and non-compliance with international rules and obligations. Without these measures, the effectiveness of such a criteria-based approach would not be guaranteed. The criteria-based approach is also important in maintaining the credibility and legitimacy of the global non-proliferation regime by providing assurance of rule-based governance, not of governance by politically discriminatory decisions.

Incentives such as assurance of fuel supply through multilateral fuel cycle arrangements are important measures to encouraging new nuclear energy states to give up pursuing their own national fuel cycles from an economic viewpoint. Participation in multilateral arrangements may also result in demonstrating the faithful commitment of participating states to global non-proliferation norms. Non-participation, despite economic rationality, may also be a good reason to suspect hidden intentions behind such a decision. However, multilateral arrangements alone may not be sufficient as non-proliferation measures since participation in a multilateral arrangement cannot become a legally-binding obligation. If it is not possible to have legally-binding multilateralization of all fuel cycle activities, the incentive approach, such as multilateral arrangements, may work complementarily with other approaches.

It should also be noted that the incentive approach mentioned above deals only with economic incentives, which are not sufficient. Equally important is dismantling potential proliferators' political and strategic motives. Although this question is beyond the scope of this policy recommendation, this recommendation takes into consideration the need to address a fundamental challenge for nuclear non-proliferation: the improvement of the regional security environment so that potential proliferators would not be tempted to pursue nuclear ambitions to cope with their regional security concerns.

Lastly, in order to decouple expanded use of nuclear energy from the risks of nuclear proliferation, nuclear accidents and nuclear terrorism, we have to ensure the 3Ss, namely nuclear non-proliferation/safeguards, nuclear safety and nuclear security, in emerging nuclear states. Advanced nuclear states such as Japan have a role and responsibility to support their efforts on 3S-related infrastructure development and capacity building. In this respect, the proposals to establish support centers for nuclear security made by several states, including Japan, during the nuclear security summit should be promoted in terms of sharing the expertise of advanced nuclear states with emerging nuclear states.

The technological approach should also have value. Although the technological approach alone is not able to prevent nuclear proliferation, we can reduce the risk of proliferation through utilization of the technological approach in combination with other approaches. For example, combining the adoption of proliferation-resistant technologies and extrinsic measures for proliferation resistance such as safeguards will increase overall proliferation resistance. Efforts to obtain international consensus on the guidelines for proliferation resistance as well as R&D efforts for proliferation-resistant nuclear technology should be promoted. Also, innovation and improvement in safeguards technologies, such as technology for measurement and detection, help promote the non-proliferation capabilities of the international community.

In considering the pros and cons of various approaches, it is important to stress that finding and developing the 'best mix' of multiple approaches with a combination of 'restrictions' and 'incentives' is an urgent task for the world.

Members of the Taskforce

Tetsuya Endo*, Ambassador, Former Vice Chairman, Japan Atomic Energy Commission / Senior Adjunct Fellow, The Japan Institute of International Affairs (JIIA)

Yumi Akimoto, Chief Executive Emeritus, Mitsubishi Materials Corporation

Masahiko Asada, Professor, Kyoto University

Tatsuya Abe, Associate Professor of International Law at the School of International Politics, Economics and Communication, Aoyama Gakuin University

Takahiko Ito, Advisor, Chubu Electric Power Co., Inc.

Masashi Nishihara, President, Research Institute for Peace and Security

Shinichi Ogawa, Visiting Professor, Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University

Toshio Okazaki, President, Japan Atomic Energy Agency

Yoji Uchiyama, Professor, Department of Risk Engineering, University of Tsukuba

Nobumasa Akiyama, Associate Professor, School of International and Public Policy, Hitotsubashi University / Adjunct Fellow, The Japan Institute of International Affairs (JIIA)

* Task Force Leader


Tetsuya Endo is currently Senior Fellow at the Japan Institute of International Affairs. He was Vice Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission of Japan. He served in various overseas diplomatic postings, including Vienna and New Zealand, as Ambassador. His domestic postings include Director-General for Science and Technology at the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Head of the Japan-North Korea Normalization Talks.

Tatsuya Abe is an Associate Professor of International Law at the School of International Politics, Economics and Communication, Aoyama Gakuin University. He was a member of the Permanent Representation of Japan to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in The Hague, the Netherlands from 2002 to 2005. He has specialized in arms control and disarmament law and has been involved as a legal expert in several technical assistance missions to developing countries. He earned his doctoral degree from Kyoto University.

Yumi Akimoto is currently President of the Japan Atomic Relations Organization. From 1958 to 1960, he conducted nuclear chemistry research at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Since then, he has been engaged in various domestic and international nuclear programs covering fuel cycle, environmental and non-proliferation issues. Dr. Akimoto served as President and CEO and then Chairman of Mitsubishi Materials Cooperation from 1994 to 2003. He also served as President and CEO of Mitsubishi Nuclear Fuel Co.

Masahiko Asada is Professor of International Law at the Graduate School of Law, Kyoto University, and a member of the International Affairs Panel of Japan's Atomic Energy Commission. A former Senior Associate (1988-1989) at St. Antony's College, Oxford, he served as Legal Adviser to the Japanese Delegation to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva from 1991 to 1993. He was also a member of the UN Panel on Verification in 2006. Professor Asada is the author of numerous articles on international law, arms control and disarmament, the use of force, and international humanitarian law.

Takahiko Ito is currently Advisor to Chubu Electric Power Co., Inc., as well as Commissioner of the Atomic Energy Commission of Japan (until January 2010). He has worked for Chubu Electric Power Co., Inc., since 1964 and spent his business career in the nuclear power field, serving as Executive Vice President & Director, Division Manager of the Power Generation Division, and Director and General Manager of the Hamaoka Nuclear Power Station (Chubu Electric Power's NPS).

Yohji Uchiyama is a professor and a chairperson of the Department of Risk Engineering, Faculty of Systems and Information Engineering, at the University of Tsukuba. His specialty is technological assessment of energy systems, covering life-cycle analysis of energy supply technologies and energy utilization technologies, and engineering economics. He served as a senior research engineer managing both the technological assessment section and the energy systems section at the Central Research Institute of the Electric Power Industry. He is an executive director of the Japan Energy and Resources Association and a vice president of the Japanese Electric Heat Association.

Toshio Okazaki entered the Science and Technology Agency (STA) in 1966. Afterwards, he served in several important science and technology positions such as First Secretary of the Japanese Embassy in France (1977), Director General of the Atomic Energy Bureau (1994) and Vice-Minister for Science and Technology (1998). He is currently President of the Japan Atomic Energy Agency (JAEA).

Shinichi Ogawa has been teaching at Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University since April 2009 as Visiting Professor. He was the Director of the Research Department, National Institute for Defense Studies (NIDS), Ministry of Defense. He started his career as a research assistant at the Institute in 1978. He holds a PhD in political science from Yale University with a concentration in international relations, nuclear arms control and strategic studies.
Dr. Ogawa's most recent article is "The 2010 U.S. Nuclear Posture Review and Its Implication for Japan" carried by the Asia Pacific Bulletin (16 April 2010), published by the East-West Center in Washington, DC.

Masashi Nishihara is President of the Research Institute for Peace and Security, Tokyo, and also Chairman of the Japanese Association for International Security. From 2000 to 2006 he served as President of the National Defense Academy, Yokosuka. Earlier, from 1986 to 1992, Dr. Nishihara was on the Council of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, London. From 2004 to 2006 he was a member of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission.

Nobumasa Akiyama is an Associate Professor at the Graduate School of Law and the Graduate School of International Public Policy at Hitotsubashi University, and an Adjunct Research Fellow at the Center for the Promotion of Disarmament and Non-Proliferation, Japan Institute of International Affairs. His other professional appointments include membership in various governmental and academic study groups at the Ministry of Defense, the Japan Atomic Energy Commission, and the Japan Atomic Industry Forum, and advisor to the Japanese delegation to the NPT Review Conference. Professor Akiyama has published extensively and presented papers at various conferences on non-proliferation, Japan's national security and nuclear energy. Recently, he has been working on institutional problems at the nexus of the peaceful use of nuclear energy and nuclear proliferation.