Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

European Union Initiatives: Strategy Against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Nuclear Non-Proliferation in International Law - Volume I

Abstract

The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) has been at the centre of international political security matters for a long time. On 12 December 2003, the European Council of the European Union (EU) adopted the Strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (EU’s WMD Strategy) with the ultimate objective ‘to prevent, deter, halt and, where possible, eliminate proliferation programmes of concern worldwide’. This was the first public high-level document on non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. This Strategy was prepared within the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) and is a part of the European Security Strategy (ESS), which constitutes the base document for all five new key threats. The Strategy includes mutual measures which European Union Member States should take to eliminate or reduce the risks of proliferation. This chapter refers to the Strategy, as well as to its implementation, since 2004. By means of selected case studies, the analysis aims to explore whether, and if so how, the EU has reacted during the past years in tackling the increasing proliferation risk. In this regard, this chapter focuses mainly on two of the EU’s aims stated in its WMD Strategy: the promotion of a stable international and regional environment as well as a close cooperation with key partners.

Dr. iur. Jana Hertwig, LL.M. (Eur. Integration) is a Postdoctoral Research Associate and Lecturer in International Humanitarian Law at the Institute for International Law of Peace and Armed Conflict (IFHV), Ruhr-University of Bochum, Germany. In 2009, she completed her doctorate in European non-proliferation policies of WMD and earned the 2011 Dissertation Award of the German Society for Military Law and the Law of War.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    EU Doc. 15708/03, 10 December 2003.

  2. 2.

    Giannella 2012.

  3. 3.

    Oezbek 2010, p. 70.

  4. 4.

    Portela 2003, p. 3.

  5. 5.

    http://eeas.europa.eu/non-proliferation-and-disarmament/wmd/index_en.htm.

  6. 6.

    Treaty on European Union—TEU –, Official Journal (OJ) of the EU: 2010/C 83/01, 30 March 2010, p. 1.

  7. 7.

    EU Doc. 15895/03, 8 December 2003.

  8. 8.

    See generally on the EU’s WMD non-proliferation policy framework: van Ham 2011, pp. 2–5.

  9. 9.

    European Union Action Following the Attacks in the United States—Update of the ‘Road Map’, EU Doc. 13880/01, 15 November 2001.

  10. 10.

    EU Doc. SN 140/01, 21 September 2001.

  11. 11.

    van Ham 2011, p. 3.

  12. 12.

    See general Ambos and Arnold 2004 including legal policy articles about the situation before, during, and after the Iraq war; the legitimacy of the Iraq war under international law; as well as the role of the UN Security Council and the International Court of Justice; furthermore: McGoldrick 2004, pp. 47 ff; Yoo 2003; Paulus 2004.

  13. 13.

    Goldthau 2008, p. 41.

  14. 14.

    van Ham 2011, p. 3.

  15. 15.

    Ibid.

  16. 16.

    Giannella 2012.

  17. 17.

    EU Doc. 8410/03, 5 May 2005, no. 69, para 5.

  18. 18.

    EU Doc. 8316/1/03 REV 1, 8 April 2003, no. 3.

  19. 19.

    EU Doc. 8220/03 (Presse 105), 14 April 2003, p. 19.

  20. 20.

    EU Doc. 10352/03, 10 June 2003; EU Doc. 10369/03 (Presse 166), 16 June 2003, p. 9.

  21. 21.

    EU Doc. 11638/03, 1 October 2003, Annex II, pp. 37–39.

  22. 22.

    van Ham 2011, p. 3.

  23. 23.

    Portela 2003, p. II.

  24. 24.

    Toje 2005, p. 131.

  25. 25.

    House of Lords 2005, p. 10, para 15.

  26. 26.

    EU Doc. 15895/03, 8 December 2003, pp. 5–6.

  27. 27.

    Id., p. 13.

  28. 28.

    EU Doc. 14469/4/05 REV 4, 30 November 2005.

  29. 29.

    EU Doc. 5319/06, 13 January 2006.

  30. 30.

    EU, Non-proliferation, Disarmament and Arms Controls, http://www.consilium.europa.eu.

  31. 31.

    Meier and Neuneck 2006, p. 198.

  32. 32.

    http://eeas.europa.eu/non-proliferation-and-disarmament/wmd/index_en.htm.

  33. 33.

    Grip 2011a, b, p. 6.

  34. 34.

    Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Press Office, Jacek Bylica Becomes EU Special Envoy for Non-proliferation and Disarmament, Warsaw, 12 November 2012, http://www.mfa.gov.pl/en/news/jacek_bylica_becomes_eu_special_envoy_for_non_proliferation_and_disarmament.

  35. 35.

    Meier 2013, p. 19.

  36. 36.

    Council Decision 2010/430/CFSP, Establishing a European Network of Independent Non-proliferation Think Tanks in Support of the Implementation of the EU Strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, 26 July 2010, OJ L 202, 4 August 2010, p. 5.

  37. 37.

    http://www.nonproliferation.eu/.

  38. 38.

    van Ham 2011, p. 4.

  39. 39.

    Ibid.

  40. 40.

    EU External Action, Sanctions or Restrictive Measures, http://eeas.europa.eu/cfsp/sanctions/index_en.htm.

  41. 41.

    EU Doc. 10198/1/04, REV 1, 7 June 2004.

  42. 42.

    EU Doc. 15114/05, 2 December 2005.

  43. 43.

    Dupont 2012, p. 336.

  44. 44.

    Ibid.

  45. 45.

    EU Doc. 15246/04, 3 December 2004, Annex I (Priorities which do not Require EU Funding) and Annex II (Priorities Requiring EU Funding) to Annex B.

  46. 46.

    EU Doc. 7705/02 (Presse 91), 15 April 2002, pp. II–VI.

  47. 47.

    EU Doc. 10354/03, 10 June 2003, pp. 2 ff.

  48. 48.

    EU Doc. 11638/03, 1 October 2003, Annex II, para 5.

  49. 49.

    EU Doc. 17172/08, 17 December 2008.

  50. 50.

    http://eeas.europa.eu/non-proliferation-and-disarmament/wmd/index_en.htm.

  51. 51.

    In this regard Grip’s 2011a, b analysis has shown a clear increase in states’ participation in all instruments from 2004 until mid-2011. See Lina Grip, Assessing Selected European Union External Assistance and Cooperation Projects on WMD Non-proliferation, in: EU Non-proliferation Consortium (ed.), EU Non-proliferation Paper No. 6, December 2011, pp. 3 ff.

  52. 52.

    Id., p. 4.

  53. 53.

    See in more detail: Hertwig 2010, pp. 179–372.

  54. 54.

    See Hart and Miller 1998.

  55. 55.

    http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/russia/.

  56. 56.

    Ibid.

  57. 57.

    International Panel on Fissile Materials, Global Fissile Material Report 2011, January 2012, http://www.fissilematerials.org, pp. 8–9, 17–18.

  58. 58.

    See for an overview: Andreis and Calogero 1995.

  59. 59.

    Nuclear Threat Initiative, Russia, http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/russia/.

  60. 60.

    Agreement on Partnership and Cooperation Establishing a Partnership Between the European Communities and their Member States, of One Part, and the Russian Federation, of the Other Part, OJ L327, 28 November 1997, p. 3.

  61. 61.

    Common Strategy of the EU of 4 June 1999 on Russia, 1999/414/CFSP, OJ L 157, 24 June 1999, p. 1.

  62. 62.

    OJ L 331, 23 December 1999, p. 11.

  63. 63.

    Höhl et al. 2003, p. 16.

  64. 64.

    Council Decision of 25 June 2001 Implementing Joint Action 1999/878/CFSP with a View to Contributing to the European Union Cooperation Programme for Non-proliferation and Disarmament in the Russian Federation (2001/493/CFSP), L 180, 3 July 2001, p. 2.

  65. 65.

    Statement by G8 Leaders, The G8 Global Partnership against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction, Kananaskis Summit, 2002, http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/cae/servlet/contentblob/388532/publicationFile/4167/GP-Kananaskis-Gipfel-2002.pdf.

  66. 66.

    http://www.state.gov/t/isn/gp2012/. The extension was needed to address the areas covered during the 2010 summit (securing nuclear and radiological materials, biosecurity, engagement of weapons scientists in the field of nonproliferation, and implementation of the Security Council Resolution 1540), http://www.nti.org/treaties-and-regimes/global-partnership-against-spread-weapons-and-materials-mass-destruction-10-plus-10-over-10-program/ See in more detail: Hakan Akbulut, The G8 Global Partnership: From Kananaskis to Deauville and Beyond, in: Austrian Institute for International Affairs (ed.), Working Paper 67, March 2013, p. 14.

  67. 67.

    Council Joint Action 2004/796/CFSP of 22 November 2004 for the Support of the Physical Protection of a Nuclear Site in the Russian Federation, OJ L 349, 25 November 2004, p. 57.

  68. 68.

    Council Joint Action 2007/178/CFSP of 19 March 2007 in Support of Chemical Weapons Destruction in the Russian Federation in the Framework of the EU Strategy against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, OJ L 81, 22 March 2007, p. 30.

  69. 69.

    Council Decision 2003/874/CFSP of 8 December 2003 Implementing Joint Action 2003/472/CFSP with a View to Contributing to the European Union Cooperation Programme for Non-proliferation and Disarmament in the Russian Federation, OJ L 326, 13 December 2003, p. 49.

  70. 70.

    See in detail: Hertwig 2010, p. 279.

  71. 71.

    OPCW, Report on the Implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction in 2011, Doc. C/17-4, 27 November 2012, p. 6.

  72. 72.

    Nuclear Threat Initiative, Russia, http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/russia/.

  73. 73.

    Grip 2011a, b, p. 2.

  74. 74.

    Oznobistchev and Saveliev 2005, p. 24, http://www.un.org/disarmament/education/wmdcommission/files/No33.pdf.

  75. 75.

    http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/russia/. See in detail for worried Non-proliferation experts: Miller and Broad (8 December 1998); and Cordesman and Seitz 2008, p. 14.

  76. 76.

    Article 2(2) of the Council Joint Action 1999/878/CFSP: “Other projects to be funded under the Programme (in the biological, chemical and nuclear fields) in the future shall be determined by the Council, on a recommendation of a Member State and/or the Commission.” (Emphasis added).

  77. 77.

    Article 2(2) of the Council Joint Action 2003/472/CFSP: “The new projects to be adopted under the programme shall be in the chemical, nuclear or biological field or relate to export controls.” (Emphasis added).

  78. 78.

    EU Doc. 10453/03, para B)(8).

  79. 79.

    EU Doc. 14997/03, 19 November 2003, Attachment to Annex.

  80. 80.

    Note on the Implementation of the WMD Clause, EU Doc. 5503/09, 19 January 2009, p. 4.

  81. 81.

    van Ham 2011, p. 4.

  82. 82.

    To this effect: Kienzle 2006, p. 2. See also: Potter 2007, pp. 61 ff; Hertwig 2010, p. 287.

  83. 83.

    EU Doc. 5503/09, 19 January 2009.

  84. 84.

    “Essential Elements: Consultation Procedure and Appropriate Measures as Regards Human Rights, Democratic Principles and the Rule of Law”.

  85. 85.

    Partnership Agreement between the Members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States of the One Part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the Other Part, Signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000, OJ L 317, 15 December 2000, p. 3.

  86. 86.

    In this regard the critique by Grip 2009, p. 19, is incomprehensible, because it stresses the lack of criteria, in most agreements to date, for judging whether or not a partner of the EU has fallen below international standards for various aspects of non-proliferation. However, the EU Non-proliferation Clause foresees that in case a third State does not fulfill its obligations in relation with the non-proliferation provisions, the EU can, as a last resort, suspend the Agreement.

  87. 87.

    van Ham, Speaking Notes, p. 4, http://www.nonproliferation.eu/documents/kickoff/van_ham.pdf.

  88. 88.

    Kienzle 2006, pp. 12–13.

  89. 89.

    See p. 4 of the Note on the Implementation of the WMD Clause.

  90. 90.

    Kienzle 2006, p. 13.

  91. 91.

    van Ham 2011, p. 4.

  92. 92.

    Six-monthly Progress Report on the Implementation of the EU Strategy against the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (2010/II), EU Doc. 17080/10, 16 December 2010, p. 47; Six-monthly Progress Report on the Implementation of the EU Strategy against the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction (2012/I), OJ C 237, 7 August 2012, p. 6. As to the background and negotiations of the agreements see in detail: Lina Grip, The EU Non-proliferation Clause: a Preliminary Assessment, SIPRI Background Paper November 2009, pp. 6 ff.

  93. 93.

    Article 4 of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement Establishing a Partnership between the European Communities and Their Member States, for the one Part, and the Republic of Tajikistan, of the other Part, Luxembourg, 11 October 2004, L 350, 29 December 2009, p. 3.

  94. 94.

    Article 11b of the Partnership Agreement between the Members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States of the one Part, and the European Community and its Member States, of the other Part, signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000; Agreement Amending for the Second Time the Partnership Agreement between the Members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States, of the one Part, and the European Community and Its Member States, of the other Part, Signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000, as First Amended in Luxembourg on 25 June 2005, L 287, 04/11/2010, p. 3. Date of Entry into Force: Pending.

  95. 95.

    Article 8 of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and Their Member States, of the one Part, and the Republic of Albania, of the other Part, Luxembourg, 12 June 2006, L 107, 28 April 2009, p. 166.

  96. 96.

    Articles 3, 10(3) of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement Between the European Communities and Their Member States of the one Part, and the Republic of Montenegro, of the other Part, 15 October 2007, OJ L 108, 29 April 2010, p. 3.

  97. 97.

    Article 3 of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement between the European Communities and Their Member States, of the one Part, and the Republic of Serbia, of the other Part, 29 April 2008, http://www.europa.rs/upload/documents/key_documents/2008/SAA.pdf The agreement is not yet in force, but the ratification process is close to completion. See European Commission, Serbia 2012 Progress Report, EU Doc. SWD (2012) 333 Final, 10 October 2012, pp. 4–5.

  98. 98.

    See the Progress Reports on Implementation of the European Neighbourhood Policy, 20 March 2013, http://ec.europa.eu/world/enp/documents_en.htm.

  99. 99.

    Kienzle 2006, p. 12.

  100. 100.

    EU Doc. 14997/03, 19 November 2003, Annex, p. 3 lit. c.

  101. 101.

    Grip 2009, p. 19.

  102. 102.

    van Ham, Speaking Notes, p. 4, http://www.nonproliferation.eu/documents/kickoff/van_ham.pdf.

  103. 103.

    Ibid.

  104. 104.

    Joint Statement on Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Office of the Press Secretary, The White House, Washington, DC, 25 June 2003, http://2001-2009.state.gov/p/eur/rls/rm/2003/21944.htm.

  105. 105.

    EU-U.S. Joint Programme of Work on the Nonproliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, Washington, 20 June 2005, EU Doc. 10312/05 (Presse 164).

  106. 106.

    EU-U.S. Declaration on Enhancing Cooperation in the Field of Non Proliferation and the Fight against Terrorism, Washington, 20 June 2005, EU Doc. 10306/05 (Presse 160).

  107. 107.

    EU-U.S. Declaration on Non-proliferation and Disarmament, Washington, 3 November 2009, EU Doc. 15352/09 (Presse 316), Annex 3, p. 13.

  108. 108.

    Oezbek 2010, p. 69.

  109. 109.

    Franceschini 2012, p. 1.

  110. 110.

    European External Action Service, Iran’s Nuclear Programme, http://eeas.europa.eu/iran/nuclear_en.htm.

  111. 111.

    EU Doc. 9898/05, 8 June 2005, p. 14. Background: Bailes 2006, pp. 131–132.

  112. 112.

    Federal Foreign Office, The Conflict Surrounding Iran’s Nuclear Programme, http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/EN/Aussenpolitik/RegionaleSchwerpunkte/NaherUndMittlererOsten/Iran/Iranisches-Nuklearprogramm_node.html.

  113. 113.

    Goldthau 2008, p. 41.

  114. 114.

    Schwegmann 2005, p. 3; quod vide Linden 2006, pp. 47 ff.

  115. 115.

    Meier 2013, p. 1.

  116. 116.

    Id., p. 15.

  117. 117.

    van Ham 2011, p. 13.

  118. 118.

    Dissenting opinion but mistakable: Zakharchenko 2007, p. 34: "Iran is at the moment not a show case for the differences between the U.S. and EU approach. (…) The Iranian case, however, shows a divide between the hard and the soft line, which is one that characterizes the differences between the EU and U.S. (…)”, as well as p. 37: “On the whole, several main findings can be pointed out; that the EU and U.S. approaches are more in line of convergence than divergence; that they cannot be fully described as the ‘soft’ versus ‘hard’ approach and that EU-U.S. cooperation in dealing with terrorism and proliferation of WMD is becoming the new unifying factor in the transatlantic relationship which also raises the significance of Europe in the U.S. foreign policy.”

  119. 119.

    Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 17 July 2008, p. 1.

  120. 120.

    See for example: EU-U.S. Declaration on Enhancing Cooperation in the Field of Non Proliferation and the Fight against Terrorism, Washington, 20 June 2005, EU Doc. 10306/05 (Presse 160): ‘(…) we reconfirm our full support for the ongoing European efforts to secure Iran’s agreement to provide objective guarantees that its nuclear program is intended for exclusively peaceful purposes. (…)’.

  121. 121.

    Thränert 2005, pp. 13–14.

  122. 122.

    Rudolf 2004, pp. 6–7, http://www.swp-berlin.org.

  123. 123.

    On this note: Perthes 2005, p. 19.

  124. 124.

    Rudolf 2005, p. 2.

  125. 125.

    The IAEA Board of Governors ‘[r]equests the Director General to report to the Security Council of the United Nations that these steps are required of Iran by the Board and to report to the Security Council all IAEA reports and resolutions, as adopted, relating to this issue (…)”, IAEA, Doc. GOV/2006/14, 4 February 2006; detailed: Klemm 2007, p. 8.

  126. 126.

    Meier 2013, p. 9.

  127. 127.

    Federal Foreign Office, The Conflict Surrounding Iran’s Nuclear Programme, http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/EN/Aussenpolitik/RegionaleSchwerpunkte/NaherUndMittlererOsten/Iran/Iranisches-Nuklearprogramm_node.html.

  128. 128.

    Meier 2013, p. 11; Crail 2009.

  129. 129.

    Meier 2013, p. 11.

  130. 130.

    Gordon and Zeleny 2007.

  131. 131.

    Oezbek 2010, pp. 71–72.

  132. 132.

    Joint Plan of Action, Geneva, 24 November 2013, http://eeas.europa.eu/statements/docs/2013/131124_03_en.pdf.

  133. 133.

    Joint Statement by EU High Representative Catherine Ashton and Iran Foreign Minister Zarif, Geneva, 24 November 2013, http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/cae/servlet/contentblob/660506/publicationFile/186774/131124_Joint%20Statement%20EU-Iran.pdf.

  134. 134.

    Neuneck 2004a, b has also characterized the elaboration of the EU’s WMD Strategy as an important process: although to be criticized for using poor language and many formula compromises, the EU disposes of a basis to what it can be measured in future according.;; see furthermore Portela‘s conclusion: ‘(…) today we find that the EU is establishing itself as an actor in the field of nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction (…)’.

  135. 135.

    See Jankowski 2012, Swieboda 2009; Kempin and Overhaus 2012.

  136. 136.

    See Meier 2008; dissenting opinion, e.g.: Lundin 2012, pp. 1, 13: ‘European Union (EU) institutions and member states need to develop a single paradigm to better work together in support of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). This should be possible even if the Lisbon and Euratom treaties are not merged. In light of this, it is time to review the European Security Strategy and the EU Strategy against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (…) The EU Security Strategy and the WMD Strategy (…) did not fully take into account the full spectrum of problems and opportunities within WMD non-proliferation.’

  137. 137.

    EU Doc. 10747/08, 17 June 2008.

References

  • Akbulut H (2013) The G8 Global Partnership: From Kananaskis to Deauville and Beyond. In: Austrian Institute for International Affairs (ed) Working Paper 67, March 2013

    Google Scholar 

  • Ambos K, Arnold J (eds) (2004) Der Irak-Krieg und das Völkerrecht. Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailes AJK (2006) Europeans fighting proliferation: the test-case of Iran. Sicherheit und Frieden 24(3):129–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cordesman AH, Seitz AC (2008) Iranian weapons of mass destruction: biological weapons program. Center for Strategic and International Studies, 28 Oct 2008

    Google Scholar 

  • Crail P (2009) U.S. still committed to engaging Iran. Arms Control Today 6:39 (July/August 2009). http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2009_07-08/Iran

  • de Andreis M, Calogero F (1995) The Soviet Nuclear Weapon Legacy. SIPRI Research Report No. 10

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupont P-E (2012) Countermeasures and collective security: the case of the EU sanctions against Iran. J Confl Secur Law 17(3):301–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franceschini G (2012) The NPT review process and strengthening the treaty: peaceful uses. In: EU Non-Proliferation Consortium (ed) EU Non-proliferation Paper No. 11 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  • Giannella A (2012) Third Plenary Session: EU Non-Proliferation Policy and Implementation, EU Non-Proliferation & Disarmament Conference, Brussels, 4 Feb 2012. http://www.iiss.org/conferences/eu-non-proliferation-and-disarmament-conference/speeches/third-plenary-session/annalisa-giannella/

  • Goldthau A (2008) Divided over Iraq, United over Iran. A Rational Choice Explanation to European Irrationalities. Eur Polit Econ Rev 8:40–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon MR, Zeleny J (2007) If Elected … Obama Envisions New Iran Approach. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/02/us/politics/02obama.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

  • Grip L (2009), The EU Non-Proliferation Clause: A Preliminary Assessment, SIPRI Background Paper, Stockholm

    Google Scholar 

  • Grip L (2011a) Assessing Selected European Union External Assistance and Cooperation Projects on WMD Non-Proliferation. In: EU Non-Proliferation Consortium (ed) EU Non-Proliferation Paper No. 6 (Dec 2011)

    Google Scholar 

  • Grip L (2011b) Mapping the European Union’s Institutional Actors Related to WMD Non-proliferation. In: EU Non-Proliferation Consortium (ed) EU Non-Proliferation Paper No. 1 (May 2011)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart J, Miller CD (1998) (eds) Chemical Weapon Destruction in Russia: Political, Legal and Technical Aspects. Chemical & Biological Warfare Studies No. 17 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hertwig J (2010) Die Europäische Union und die Bekämpfung der Verbreitung von Massenvernichtungswaffen: Theorie und Praxis der europäischen Nichtverbreitungsstrategie. Dissertation, Peter Lang Verlag, 2010

    Google Scholar 

  • Höhl K, Müller H, Schaper A (2003) EU cooperative threat reduction activities in Russia. In: Schmitt B (ed) Chaillot Paper 61 (June 2003)

    Google Scholar 

  • House of Lords (2005) (ed) Preventing Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction: The EU Contribution—Report with Evidence, 13th Report of Session 2004-05 (London 2005), http://www.publications.parliament.uk

  • Jankowski D (2012) Does the EU Really Need a New Security Strategy?’. http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2012/02/21/eu-security-strategy/

  • Kempin R, Overhaus M (2012) Europa braucht eine neue Sicherheitsstrategie. Überlegungen und Fahrplan zur Neufassung der ESS. SWP-Aktuell 2012. http://www.swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/aktuell/2012A10_kmp_ovs.pdf

  • Kienzle B (2006) The EU Strategy against Proliferation of WMDs: An Interim Assessment, CFSP Forum, Vol 4, Issue 4 (July 2006). http://www.fornet.info

  • Klemm M (2007) Die Untersuchungen der IAEO zum iranischen Atomprogramm. Wie Iran sich drückt und windet. SWP-Diskussionspapier 2007. http://www.swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/arbeitspapiere/michael_klemm_dp_format_ks.pdf

  • Linden R (2006) Die Initiative der EU-3 im Iran. Ein Testfall für die europäische Sicherheitspolitik nach der Irak-Krise? In: Lehrstuhl Internationale Beziehungen/Außenpolitik/Universität Trier, Studien zur Deutschen und Europäischen Außenpolitik 2 (2006). http://www.deutsche-aussenpolitik.de/resources/monographies/Linden.pdf

  • Lundin L-E (2012) The European Union, the IAEA and WMD Non-proliferation: Unity of Approach and Continuity of Action. In: Non-Proliferation Consortium (ed) EU Non-proliferation Paper No. 9 (Feb 2012)

    Google Scholar 

  • McGoldrick D (2004) From “9-11” to the “Iraq War 2003”: International Law in an Age of Complexity. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Meier O (2008) A New Security Strategy?’. http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2008_05/OliverFeature

  • Meier O (2013) European Efforts to Solve the Conflict over Iran’s Nuclear Programme: How Has the European Union Performed? In: EU Non-Proliferation Consortium (ed) EU Non-Proliferation Paper No. 27 (Feb 2013)

    Google Scholar 

  • Meier O, Neuneck G (2006) In der Defensive: Europas Politik der Nichtverbreitung von Massenvernichtungswaffen. Friedensgutachten 2006:198–207

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller J, Broad WJ (1998) Iranians, Bioweapons in Mind, Lure Needy Ex-Soviet Scientists. New York Times, 8 Dec 1998. www.nytimes.com

  • Neuneck G (2004a) Die Proliferation von Massenvernichtungswaffen als Herausforderung für die EU. In: Ehrhardt H-G, Schmitt B (eds) Die Sicherheitspolitik der EU im Werden. Nomos Verlag, Baden-Baden, pp 32–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuneck G (2004b) Die Weiterverbreitung von Massenvernichtungswaffen und die Sicherheitsstrategien der EU und der USA, Osnabrücker Jahrbuch Frieden und Wissenschaft 11:191–205. http://www.ofg.uni-osnabrueck.de/jahrbuch-pdf/2004/JB2004-Neuneck.pdf

  • Oezbek E (2010) The EU’s nonproliferation strategy: Iran as a test case. Strateg Assess 13(2):69–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Oznobistchev S, Saveliev A (2005) Russia and the Chemical Disarmament Process, Paper 33 commissioned by the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission (WMDC), 2005. http://www.un.org/disarmament/education/wmdcommission/files/No33.pdf

  • Paulus A (2004) The war against Iraq and the future of international law: hegemony or pluralism? Mich J Int Law 25:691–733

    Google Scholar 

  • Perthes V (2005) The EU needs a U.S. Input on Iran. Eur Aff 4:17–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Portela C (2003) The role of the EU in the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons: the way to Thessaloniki and beyond. PRIF Reports No. 65 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  • Potter WC (2007) Remembering Nonproliferation Principles In: The Century Foundation (ed) Breaking the Nuclear Impasse, pp. 61 ff

    Google Scholar 

  • Rudolf P (2004) Die USA, Iran und die transatlantischen Beziehungen. Auf dem Weg in die Krise? 37 SWP-Aktuell (2004). http://www.swp-berlin.org

  • Rudolf P (2005) Amerikanische Iranpolitik: Stand, Optionen, Szenarien. 12 SWP-Aktuell (2005). http://www.swp-berlin.org

  • Schwegmann C (2005) Kontaktgruppen und EU-3-Verhandlungen. Notwendige Flexibilisierung Europäischer Außenpolitik. 62 SWP-Aktuell (2005). http://www.swp-berlin.org

  • Swieboda P (2009) Five Good Reasons for Rewriting Europe’s Security Strategy. Spring. http://www.europesworld.org/NewEnglish/Home_old/Article/tabid/191/ArticleType/ArticleView/ArticleID/21338/language/en-US/Default.aspx

  • Thränert O (2005) Das iranische Atomprogramm. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte (Nonproliferation) 48:10–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Toje A (2005) The 2003 European Union security strategy: a critical appraisal. Eur Foreign Aff Rev 10:117–133

    Google Scholar 

  • van Ham P (2011) The European Union’s WMD Strategy and the CFSP: A Critical Analysis. In: EU Non-Proliferation Consortium (ed) EU Non-Proliferation Paper No. 2 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoo J (2003) International Law and the War in Iraq. Am J Int Law 97(3):563–576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zakharchenko AI (2007) EU and U.S. strategies against terrorism and proliferation of WMD, comparative study. The Marshall Center Occasional Paper Series 6 (January 2007)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ruhr-University of Bochum, Universitätstr. 150, 44780, Bochum, Germany

    Jana Hertwig

Authors
  1. Jana Hertwig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jana Hertwig .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Management - Law, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham, Surrey, United Kingdom

    Jonathan L. Black-Branch

  2. Cologne, Germany

    Dieter Fleck

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 T.M.C. Asser Press and the Authors

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hertwig, J. (2014). European Union Initiatives: Strategy Against Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction. In: Black-Branch, J., Fleck, D. (eds) Nuclear Non-Proliferation in International Law - Volume I. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-020-6_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation