|Politics 190B||The Treaty Fabric|||
|THE TREATY FABRIC|
|United Nations||Founded 1945.||With the end of the Cold War--and catalyzed by discovery of the Iraqi nuclear program--the UN Security Council assumed a newly assertive role. Its authority stems from the Charter, by which the members accord the UNSC primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.|
|International Atomic Energy Agency||
Statute approved 23 October 1956. [EIF 29 July 1957]
INFCIRC/66/Rev.2 16 September 1968 [Board action 1965; revisions 1966 and 1968].
INFCIRC/153 June 1972: sets out the structure and content of safeguards agreements NPT Parties are to negotiate with IAEA.
INFCIRC/540 September 1997: Model Protocol Additional to the Agreement(s) Between State(s) and the Agency for the Application of Safeguards. [pdf]
Originally designed to promote peaceful use of nuclear energy, IAEA has taken on the performance of a safeguards regime. The safeguards seek to prevent diversion of fissile material from the civil sector to nuclear weapons. The IAEA Statutes are on line.
The safeguards system is codified in a series of Information Circulars [INFCIRCs]. After the Gulf War [1990-91] it was agreed to design an expanded verification and monitoring system, dubbed 1993+2. The new template is set out in INFCIRC/540. Members are called upon to negotiate agreements with IAEA, implementing state-by-state commitments to a regime with greater powers of inspection.
|Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT]||1968 [EIF 1970]||The NPT is the linchpin of the non-proliferation regime. Its participants commit to accept IAEA safeguards [above]. The N5 [US, Russia, China, France, UK] agree to good faith efforts to achieve nuclear disarmament, subject to terms of Article VI. All others agree not to acquire or build nuclear weapons. In April-May 1995 the key NPT Review and Extension Conference concluded with qualified agreement to indefinite extension of the NPT. A further review conference took place in April-May 2000.|
|2000 NPT Review Conference. Programme of Action.||May 2000.||The final document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference contains a crucial §15, the Programme of Action. Its key features include a stipulation that steps toward nuclear disarmament be irreversible, and an unequivocal commitment by all participating states [so including the five declared nuclear weapon states: US, Russia, UK, France, and China] to achieve abolition of nuclear weapons. This languages is intended to make clear, and give effect to, states commitments under Article VI of the NPT.|
|Antarctic Treaty||1 December 1959.||Bars military activity on the Antarctic continent.|
|Partial Test Ban Treaty||Signed 5 August 1963.||Bans nuclear tests in the atmosphere; beyond its limits, including outer space; or under water, including territorial waters or high seas, but not underground. Thereafter nuclear tests were underground, except some tests by France and China.|
|Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty||
In December 2001 the GW Bush administration gave notice of its intention to invoke the Treatys withdrawal provision, and its withdrawal was effective June 2002.
A bilateral US-Soviet treaty. [The five parties Russia, United States, Belarus, Ukraine, and Khazakistan have agreed to be parties, but see next item on the ABM Demarcation Agreement &c.] Bars stipulated anti-missile systems, while permitting two defined sites. US advocates of national missile defense contend that the ABM Treaty must be changed, or abandoned, tif it stands in their way.
The GW Bush administrations abandonment of the ABM Treaty preempts further consideration of the Demarcation Agreements [see below].
A DoD site also posts the treaty text.
|ABM Treaty Protocol||1974.||Reduced the number of permitted anti-missile sites under the ABM Treaty from two to one.|
|ABM/TMD Demarcation Documents and ABM Succession Documents||Signed 26 September 1997. Require ratification; but the US Senate has not ratified.||A series of agreements among the United States, Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, and Ukraine, and some unilateral statements, addressing succession to the ABM Treaty and agreeing terms under which theatre missile defense schemes would be permitted.|
|SALT I||Signed 26 May 1972.||By this Interim Agreement, the United States and Soviet Union imposed certain limits on their strategic programs, for five years, while further talks were underway.|
|SALT II||Signed 1979. Never ratified.||Bilateral US-Soviet. The SALT II treaty established numeric limits on delivery systems, by category, and certain counting rules by which it limited, indirectly, the number of deployed nuclear warheads.|
|Intermediate Nuclear Forces||Signed 8 December 1987. Entered into force 1 June 1988.||Required [per the US Department of State narrative] destruction of the Parties' ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of between 500 and 5,500 kilometers, their launchers and associated support structures and support equipment within three years after the Treaty enters into force.|
|START I||Signed 31 July 1991. Entered into force 1994.||Bilateral US-Soviet. Further limited strategic warheads [to 6000 on 5 December 2001] and delivery systems.|
|START II||Signed 3 January 1993. The US Senate approved US ratification 26 January 1996, but has yet to consider conditions added by the Russian Duma and Federation Council in ratification actions 14 and 19 April 2000.||Bilateral US-Russia. Further reductions, culminating in deployed inventories not exceeding 3500 warheads each. At that point no heavy ICBMs, nor any ICBMs with multiple warheads, would be deployed. The original date for completion of cuts was 1 January 2003 (or 31 December 2000, if Washington and Moscow could agree on terms of US funding Russian cuts); but by a Protocol signed 26 September 1997 they pushed completion to 31 December 2007.|
|SORT [Moscow Treaty]||Signed 24 May 2002.||Bilateral US-Russia. Critics insist that this text, despite references to lower warhead levels, is an arms control fraud. It sets a nominal target for 31 December 2012, the day it expires. Either party may withdraw on three months notice. It fails to provide for staging: step-by-step reductions between 2002 and 2012. It includes no verification provisions. It permits retention of large hedge stocks: thousands of warheads. And it was accompanied by abandonment of the START II Treaty.|
|Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty||Signed September 1996.||Ratified by Britain and France, and a few others. But all states  with civil nuclear programs must ratify for it to enter into force. India is the prime holdout, contending that the N5 should agree to nuclear disarmament by a date certain as a precondition to Indian adhesion. At the present time, the N5 are all adhering to voluntary moratoria on nuclear tests.|
|European Union Successively the European Economic Community, European Community, and now the European Union. Members: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom. On 1 May 2004 ten new members joined the EU: Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovak Republic, Slovenia. The number of members is now 25. Significantly not members: Bulgaria, Norway (chose to remain out), Romania, Switzerland, Turkey (not yet accepted despite desire to enter).|
|Treaty on European Union [Maastricht Treaty]||1992||Commits the 15 to a "common foreign and security policy." Approved by a razor-thin referendum majority in France.|
Treaty of Amsterdam
[in pdf format]
|1997||A further step to consolidate the European Union..|
Treaty of Nice
[in pdf format]
[in pdf format]
|1 February 2003||Enters into effect. [Signed 26 February 2001.] The Treaty of Nice contains only changes to prior treaties. The Consolidated Text is the cumulative treaty, incorporating Treaty of Nice changes, governing the EU.|
|Single currency decision.||2 May 1998.||This decision is the final step to implement a common currency, as anticipated by the Maastricht Treaty. Eleven of the 15 will begin the transition to a common currency. [Pocket money will begin circulation, replacing national currencies, during the first six months of 2002.] Having a single currency means that social policy and money supply must be commonly concerted.|
In place in 1995.
From 25 March 2001 the five Nordic countries [Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and Iceland] will participate in the Schengen zone. [Source: Reuters; Irish Times 2 December 2000.]
Another issue is: shall there be internal borders? Thirteen EU members have accepted that there would be no passport inspection between their countries. How that is carried out is set out in the Schengen agreement. Two (the UK and Ireland) have insisted on continuing to scrutinize passports at the border.
How these particular arrangements are being coordinated with the EU's ratification of the Treaty of Amsterdam is shown clearly and in its complexity in a parliamentary speech by the Foreign Minister of Ireland, who said in part:
The Schengen process has developed, since 1985, outside the structures of the European Union. Schengen now involves thirteen Member States of the European Union as well as Norway and Iceland. It deals with a range of issues such as borders, immigration controls and policing which overlap with the provisions of the new Title IIIa. It also deals with other matters related to freedom of movement which remain within the Third Pillar and which are dealt with in Article 1.11 of the Treaty and in the second Protocol.
For reasons related to the UK position on freedom of movement and to the Common Travel Area between the two countries, neither Ireland nor the United Kingdom participate in Schengen. Now that those arrangements are to be brought within the EU framework by way of the second Protocol, Ireland and the United Kingdom, if they wish, may continue to remain outside. Either or both will, however, also be able to opt into all or part of Schengen subject to certain conditions. Corresponding provisions apply, insofar as Ireland and the United Kingdom are concerned, to the provisions of new Title IIIa as long as the Common Travel Area arrangements are maintained.
|NATO Treaty||4 April 1949.||NATO remains the expression of the defense posture of the United States, Canada, and most of the West European countries. [EU countries not in NATO: Austria, Cyprus, Finland, Ireland, Malta, Sweden. NATO countries not in the EU: Bulgaria, Iceland, Norway, Romania, Turkey. European countries in neither NATO nor the EU: Albania, Croatia, FYRO Macedonia, Switzerland.] NATO extends the US nuclear deterrent to all member states. In addition, it contains explicit obligations to come to the conventional defense of any member state which is attacked. With the end of the Cold War, NATO's purpose is on the table. On 30 April 1998 the US Senate agreed to the further admission of the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland into NATO. They formally entered NATO on 12 March 1999. On 2 April 2004 NATO added Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia, bringing the total number of members to 26.|
|Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe [CFE Treaty]. It is also at the OSCE site.||Opened for signature 19 November 1990; entered into force 9 November 1992. In addition, there is an Agreement on Adaptation of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, signed 19 November 1999, which will enter into force when ratified by all signatories. An unofficial consolidated text, incorporating the 1999 amendments, is in SIPRI Yearbook 2000, pp. 627-642.||Negotiated as the Cold War was coming to an end, this agreement specifies the levels of conventional military forces and personnel in the ATTU region [from the Atlantic to the Urals]. It has some 50 members, including the members of NATO and the former Warsaw Pact. It contains provisions for mutual observation and verification of adherence to the numbers stipulated inthe treaty. It is in keeping with the terms of this treaty that European militaries have shrunk in the last eight years.|
|Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe||The CFE treaty was produced, at the end of a long multi-year process, by the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. The OSCE is the institutional result. In general, OSCE decisions require unanimity.|
|Multilateral Arms Control|
|Biological Weapons Convention||Signed 10 April 1972. [EIF 26 March 1975]||An additional protocol with teeth was under development from 1994 to 2001. An Ad Hoc Group developed a text in 24 meetings, but at the last meeting [July 2001] the United States declared its opposition to the proposed text, and at a Review Conference of the BWC States Parties in November 2001 the United States sought to terminate the work of the Ad Hoc Group. That proposal was not accepted. At this writing [May 2002] the United States appears to have stymied otherwise broadly-supported changes, but States Parties will no doubt seek to keep the issue of strengthening on the agenda.|
|Chemical Weapons Convention||1993 [EIF 1997]||The CWC results from an extended negotiation in the Conference on Disarmament [an ongoing negotiating forum in Geneva, where the P5 are joined by a number of other countries] It was signed by 130 countries in Paris on Jan. 12, 1993, and entered into force on April 29, 1997. As of 7 March 2007, 182 countries have deposited instruments of ratification.|
|Landmines Convention||1997||This treaty is of special interest because it was negotiated on the initiative of public organizations and does not have the support of the United States, Russia, or China.|
|The Global Economy [A list of international trade law treaties is maintained by the Norwegian site ITL.]|
|Bretton Woods||1944||This agreement laid the basis for post-WWII economic relations (outside the Soviet sphere) until August 1971, when Richard Nixon, then President of the United States, abandoned a US commitment to accept dollars and give gold in return. With its collapse the world of economies with convertible currency turned to "floating" exchange rates, for the most part, governed by market forces.|
|International Monetary Fund [IMF]||Negotiated at Bretton Woods, 1-22 July 1944. Came into official existence on December 27,1945, when 29 countries signed its Articles of Agreement (its Charter) . . . [and it] commenced financial operations on March 1, 1947.||This body maintains liquidity among participating states. Control is in proportion to contributions to the Fund, a negotiated percentage which reflects the size of each economy. [Though independent, the IMF is a UN Specialized Agency.]|
|World Bank||This is the global lender. Governance is in the hands of the contributors, as in the IMF. [And it is also independent, but a UN Specialized Agency.] It operates through several entities, including the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development [IBRD], by which name it is also known.|
|General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade [GATT]||Agreed 13 October 1947.||GATT provided the framework for negotiation of tariff reductions, certain commodity quotas (such as export quotas under the Multi-Fibre Agreement), and other trade matters. It has been superseded by the World Trade Organization.|
|World Trade Organization||[World Trade Agreement signed 1994.] WTO established 1995.||
See GATT [above]. WTO defines itself as follows: The WTO is the only international agency overseeing the rules of international trade. Its purpose is to help trade flow smoothly, in a system based on rules, to settle trade disputes between governments, and to organize trade negotiations.
The WTO is an inter-governmental organization. The main decision-making bodies are councils and committees consisting of the WTO's entire membership. Administrative and technical support comes from the WTO Secretariat in Geneva.
The WTO was set up in 1995. The international organization that preceded it was the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), although the GATT agreement is now part of the WTO agreements. GATT deals with trade in goods, the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) deals with trade in services, and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual property (TRIPS) deals with such issues as copyright, trademarks, patents, industrial designs and trade secrets.
|Other Key Treaty Regimes|
|United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea [UNCLOS]||1983||This treaty was negotiated in the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea [the first two were in 1958 and 1960]. After a number of years an extensive text was agreed. Its principal provisions include [a] creating the "exclusive economic zone" running from each state's territorial waters (up to 12 nm from the baseline of the territorial sea) to 200 nm from the baseline [subject to neogotiation of overlapping claims], [b] according the coastal state rights to fisheries and undersea resources in that zone, [c] declaring the seabed "beyond the limits of national jurisdiction" to be the common property of all mankind; [d] establishing a regime to exploit the seabed beyond the limits of national jurisdiction; and [e] meeting the demands of the "blue ocean navy" states for continued freedom of movement for their warships, submarines, and aircraft through newly-established international straits.|
|Vienna Treaty and the Montreal Protocol||These were the first steps to address climate change. They establish a framework, and then terms, to reduce and eliminate emissions of gases (e.g. chlorofluorocarbons) believed to be responsible for the ozone hole. [There has been a succession of agreements to fix the actual levels to which states commit themselves.]|
|United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol||1992. Kyoto Protocol: Signed 11 December 1997.||
These agreements extend concern for climate to the global warming hypothesis. According to that hypothesis, which is receiving continued and growing support in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an expert panel, emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases have a long-term warming effect. The Kyoto Protocol was negotiated at the Third Conference of Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change, which concluded in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997. The convention secretariat maintains a web site.
Meetings were held at the Hague 13-25 November 2000, in an effort to define how Kyoto targets would be met. No agreement was reached, because the United States insisted that a portion of its cuts be met by natural CO2 deposit in forests and farmland, and the European Union insisted that actual cuts were required.
|On Treaties||American Society of International Law||treaty site|
|Treaty Links||American Society of International Law||link page|
|UN||United Nations||UN Treaty Collection|