Hiroshima Report 2018(9) TRANSPARENCY IN NUCLEAR FORCES, FISSILE MATERIAL FOR NUCLEAR WEAPONS, AND NUCLEAR STRATEGY/DOCTRINE
In the Final Document of 2010 NPT RevCon, the NWS were called upon to report on actions taken toward “accelerat[ion of] concrete progress on the steps leading to nuclear disarmament” to the 2014 PrepCom (Action 5). All states parties to the NPT, including the NWS, were also requested to submit regular reports on implementing nuclear disarmament measures agreed at the previous RevCon (Action 20), and the NWS were asked to agree on a standard reporting form, as a confidence-building measure (Action 21).
In accordance with these recommendations, the NWS submitted their respective reports on implementation of the NPT’s three pillars (nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and peaceful use of nuclear energy) to the 2014 NPT PrepCom and the 2015 RevCon, using a common framework, themes and categories. No similar report was submitted by any NWS to the 2017 NPT PrepCom, however; only seven NNWS (Australia, Austria, Canada, Iran, Japan, New Zealand, and Poland) submitted their respective reports on implementation on the NPT.
At the 2017 NPT PrepCom, there were some proposals for improving transparency through regular reporting by the NPT states parties, especially the NWS, to the NPT review process. For instance, the NAC proposed that NWS “should renew their commitment to regularly submit accurate, up-to-date, complete and comparable reports on the implementation of their Treaty obligations and commitments relating to nuclear disarmament,” inter alia: number, type and status of nuclear warheads and their delivery vehicles; measures taken to reduce the role and significance of nuclear weapons, and their risks; and amount of fissile material produced for military purposes. The NAC also called on countries that maintain a role for nuclear weapons in their military and security concepts, doctrines and policies for providing information on measures taken to reduce the role and significance of nuclear weapons, and number, type (strategic or non-strategic) and status (deployed or non-deployed, and alert status) of nuclear warheads within their territories. In addition, the NAC sought to discuss options to improve the measurability of the implementation of nuclear disarmament obligations and commitments, such as a set of benchmarks or similar criteria.167
The NPDI submitted a working paper “Transparency of Nuclear Weapons” to the 2017 NPT PrepCom, which included a new draft form for standard nuclear disarmament reporting based on 64 Actions agreed at the 2010 NPT RevCon. The NPDI also “remind[ed] the nuclear-weapon States of their commitments contained in the action plan of 2010, and further encourage[d] the regular submission of transparency reports by these States during the 2020 review cycle.”168 Previously, at the 2012 NPT PrepCom, the NPDI proposed a draft form for reporting on nuclear warheads, delivery vehicles, fissile material for nuclear weapons, and nuclear strategy/policies.169 Using the draft form, the following table summarizes the degree of transparency taken by the nuclear-armed states.
[167] NPT/CONF.2020/PC.I/WP.13, March 24, 2017.
[168] NPT/CONF.2020/PC.I/WP.17, March 19, 2017.
[169] NPT/CONF.2015/PC.I/WP.12, April 20, 2012.
