Indeed, there are significant challenges, as many view nuclear armaments as the only viable deterrent against threats. However, there’s a critical legal dimension often overlooked in these discussions.
The legality of nuclear weapons has been extensively debated, and according to the publication “Nuclear Weapons Are Illegal: The Historic Opinion of the World Court & How It Will Be Enforced” by Ann Fagan Ginger, the World Court (International Court of Justice) has provided a unanimous opinion. This ruling is pivotal as it declares that all nation-states have a legal duty to disarm nuclear weapons due to their inherent violation of international humanitarian law, which aims to protect civilians and prohibit unnecessary suffering during conflicts (Nuclear Weapons Are Illegal Book (Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute » Nuclear Weapons Are Illegal: The Historic Opinion of the World Court & How It Will Be Enforced)).
This leads to a broader argument: By failing to disarm as South Africa did, nations in possession of nuclear weapons could be considered in direct violation of not only the World Court’s ruling but also:
-
The UN Charter: Article 2(4) prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. The possession of nuclear weapons inherently carries the threat of their use, which can be seen as a breach of this principle.
-
International Treaties: Many treaties, including the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), aim to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and promote disarmament. The continued development or modernization of nuclear arsenals by nuclear weapon states could be argued to violate the spirit, if not the letter, of these agreements.
The case of South Africa, which dismantled its nuclear weapons program post-apartheid, stands as a precedent and a testament to what is possible when political will aligns with international legal obligations (South Africa’s Nuclear Disarmament (https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/south-africa-nuclear-disarmament/)).
Thus, the global denuclearization policy isn’t just about reducing weapons for peace; it’s also about upholding international law, where the possession of nuclear weapons by any state, given their existential threat, arguably contravenes established legal norms. This legal perspective underscores the urgency and necessity of moving towards disarmament not just for security but for compliance with international law.
I would posit that such considerations be applied through the establishment of a U.S. Department of Peace as a strategic cornerstone of a sound national defense strategy. This department would:
-
Research and Develop Policies on peaceful conflict resolution, integrating legal perspectives into defense strategies.
-
Promote International Cooperation on disarmament and non-proliferation, potentially leading in global efforts to enforce international law.
-
Engage and Educate the Public on peace and security issues, fostering a culture of peace that supports disarmament initiatives.
In terms of historical precedents, efforts like the Ottawa Treaty for landmines or the Chemical Weapons Convention show how international agreements can lead to disarmament when backed by collective action and public will.
Public perception of a Department of Peace might initially be met with skepticism; however, framing peace as an integral part of security strategy could shift views, especially by highlighting successful peace initiatives worldwide that have contributed to national security.
Especially given that U.S. foreign policy has often been wielded in ways that the international community views unfavorably, creating more enemies than it quells, as evidenced by the tribunals in Japan and Malaysia which found the U.S. guilty of war crimes in its engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan, a strategic pivot towards peace could also serve to repair international relations and enhance global security.
My proposal draft is here: Ustablishment of a US Dept. Of Peace