Facilitating the entry into force and implementation of the Amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material: Observations, challenges and benefits

While the responsibility for nuclear security at the national level rests entirely with each state, international co-operation can be crucial in helping states to fulfil their nuclear security responsibilities and obligations. The central role of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in strengthening the nuclear security framework and leading the co-ordination of international activities in the field of nuclear security is now widely recognised. Although much has been done to help states in improving nuclear security, by and under the auspices of the IAEA and other intergovernmental organisations, nuclear terrorism has gained a global recognition as one of the most challenging threats to global security in the 21. century Reports by IAEA member states to the IAEA's Incident and Trafficking Database (ITDB) indicate that nuclear material continues to go missing. Also, too many nuclear facilities are still inadequately protected and sabotage thereof is a threat. Border security remains lax in too many places and the possibility for nuclear smuggling may exist. Attempts by individuals and groups of persons are still made to acquire nuclear material for terrorist and other malicious purposes. The threat of nuclear terrorism remains real. Adopted under the auspices of the IAEA on 8 July 2005, the Amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material ('Amendment') and the existing convention, the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material (CPPNM or 'Convention') of 1980, are one of a number of treaties comprising the international legal framework on nuclear security. As will be explained later in the article, the Amendment expands and deepens the effect of the CPPNM. However, more than nine years after its adoption and despite the perceived threat and recognised need to strengthen the CPPNM dating back some 15 years ago, the Amendment is still not in force. Although to some CPPNM states parties, the pressing need for the Amendment to enter into force is clear and its benefits are recognised, further consideration needs to be given to identifying why it has not yet entered into force. More particularly, what are the reasons why nearly half of the current CPPNM states parties, including those with and without nuclear material and nuclear facilities, have still not joined the Amendment? Also, what challenges do they face in joining and effectively implementing the instrument? This article will seek to provide answers and also to identify some benefits of the Amendment. Part A of this article places the Amendment into context by identifying the relevant legal instruments comprising the international legal framework for nuclear security. Part B highlights some of the Amendment's new and extended provisions. The IAEA Secretariat's internal Plan of Action on Facilitating Adherence to and Implementation of the Amendment (the 'Plan of Action') is highlighted in Part C, which also addresses relevant IAEA activities by identifying the broad range of services provided to IAEA member states. Part D identifies some observations and challenges associated with the entry into force and implementation of the Amendment, the main focus is on its provisions, which are likely to require changes to the national legislative framework. Finally, Part E of this article concludes with some identified potential benefits of joining the Amendment, in particular, those considered by the IAEA Advisory Group on Nuclear Security ('AdSec'). (author)