A Nuclear-Weapon-Free Southern Hemisphere

  • Terence O’Brien


Nuclear-weapon-free zones (NWFZ) are regionally derived initiatives. In this regard they are qualitatively different from other parts of the international nuclear weapons and arms control agenda where the initiative derives substantially from the acknowledged nuclear-weapons states (NWS). For all practical purposes this means that the lion’s share of the nuclear security discourse and agenda is promoted, indeed defined, by those acknowledged NWS. The stage reached on the international agenda — with the indefinite renewal of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1995, and the adoption of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Advisory Opinion on the legality of nuclear weapons in 1996 — has refocused attention on NWFZ and their utility in advancing matters further down the twin tracks of genuine non-proliferation and real nuclear disarmament.


Southern Hemisphere Nuclear Weapon Exclusive Economic Zone North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Advisory Opinion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 6.
    Zachary S. Davis, ‘The Spread of Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones: Building a New Nuclear Bargain’, Arms Control Today 26 (February 1996), p. 15.Google Scholar
  2. 7.
    Jon Brook Wolfsthal, ‘Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones: Coming of Age?’, Arms Control Today 23 (March 1993).Google Scholar
  3. 9.
    Paul Keal, ‘Nuclear Weapons and the New World Order’, in Richard Leaver and James L. Richardson, eds, Charting the Post-Cold War Order ( Boulder: Westview, 1993 ), p. 96.Google Scholar
  4. 10.
    Andrew Mack, ‘Key Security Issues in the Asia–Pacific’, in Leaver and Richardson, eds, Charting the Post-Cold War Order, p. 155.Google Scholar
  5. 13.
    The UN Security Resolution of February 1995 underscored the paramount importance of halting proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and described it ‘as a threat to international peace and security’, which implies that a military response may be in order. See Alton Frye, ’Banning Ballistic Missiles’, Foreign Affairs 75 (November/December 1996), p. 108. By no stretch of the imagination does such a resolution add up to the justification of nuclear deterrence for preventing proliferation.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Terence O’Brien

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations