View source for Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

{{Use dmy dates|date=May 2013}}
{{Infobox Treaty
| name                = Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
| long_name           =Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
| image               = NPT parties.svg
| image_width         =350 px
| caption             =Participation in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
{{Col-begin}}
{{Col-2}}
{{legend|#5050ff|Recognized nuclear weapon state ratifiers}}
{{legend|#00aa00|Other ratifiers}}
{{legend|orange|Withdrawn (North Korea)}}
{{legend|#eeee00|Unrecognized state, abiding by treaty (Taiwan)}}
{{Col-2}}
{{legend|#000080|Recognized nuclear weapon state [[Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties|acceders]]}}
{{legend|#008000|Other acceders or succeeders}}
{{legend|#ff1111|[[List of parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons#Non-signatory states|Non-signatory]] (India, Israel, Pakistan, South Sudan)}}
{{Col-end}}
| type                =
| date_drafted        =
| date_signed         = 1 July 1968
| location_signed     = New York, United States
| date_sealed         =
| date_effective      = 5 March 1970<!--[https://fas.org/nuke/control/npt/]-->
| condition_effective = Ratification by the [[Soviet Union]], the [[United Kingdom]], the [[United States]], and 40 other signatory states.<!--Per article IX-->
| date_expiration     =
| parties             = 190 ([[List of parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty|complete list]])<br>non-parties: [[India]], [[Israel]], [[North Korea]], [[Pakistan]] and [[South Sudan]]
| depositor           =Governments of the United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
| language            =
| languages           =English, Russian, French, Spanish and Chinese
| wikisource          =Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
}}

The '''Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons''', commonly known as the '''Non-Proliferation Treaty''' or '''NPT''', is an international [[treaty]] whose objective is to prevent the spread of [[nuclear weapon]]s and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of [[Nuclear technology|nuclear energy]], and to further the goal of achieving [[nuclear disarmament]] and general and complete disarmament.<ref name="un.org">{{cite web|url=http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/NPT.shtml|title=UNODA - Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)|work=un.org|accessdate=2016-02-20}}</ref>

Opened for signature in 1968, the treaty entered into force in 1970. As required by the text, after twenty-five years, NPT Parties met in May 1995 and agreed to extend the treaty indefinitely.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://acronym.org.uk/old/official-and-govt-documents/decisions-adopted-1995-npt-review-extension-conference|title=Decisions Adopted at the 1995 NPT Review & Extension Conference - Acronym Institute|publisher=}}</ref> More countries have adhered to the NPT than any other arms limitation and disarmament agreement, a testament to the treaty's significance.<ref name="un.org"/> As of August 2016, 191 states have adhered to the treaty, though [[North Korea]], which acceded in 1985 but never came into compliance, announced its withdrawal from the NPT in 2003, following detonation of nuclear devices in violation of core obligations.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://dtirp.dtra.mil/pdfs/npt_status_2009.pdf |title=Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) |work=[[Defense Treaty Inspection Readiness Program]] - [[United States Department of Defense]] |accessdate=19 June 2013 |publisher=[[Defense Treaty Inspection Readiness Program]] |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130311220936/http://dtirp.dtra.mil/pdfs/npt_status_2009.pdf |archivedate=11 March 2013 }}</ref>  Four [[UN member states]] have never accepted the NPT, three of which are thought to possess nuclear weapons: [[India]], [[Israel]], and [[Pakistan]]. In addition, [[South Sudan]], founded in 2011, has not joined.

The treaty defines [[List of states with nuclear weapons#Five_nuclear-weapon_states_under_the_NPT|nuclear-weapon states]] as those that have built and tested a nuclear explosive device before 1 January 1967; these are  the [[United States]], [[Russia]], the [[United Kingdom]], [[France]], and [[China]].  Four other states are known or believed to possess nuclear weapons: [[India and weapons of mass destruction|India]], [[Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction|Pakistan]], and [[North Korea and weapons of mass destruction|North Korea]] have openly tested and declared that they possess nuclear weapons, while [[Israel]] is [[Policy of deliberate ambiguity|deliberately ambiguous]] regarding [[Nuclear weapons and Israel|its nuclear weapons status]].

The NPT is often seen to be based on a central bargain: <blockquote>the NPT non-nuclear-weapon states agree never to acquire nuclear weapons and the NPT nuclear-weapon states in exchange agree to share the benefits of peaceful nuclear technology and to pursue nuclear disarmament aimed at the ultimate elimination of their nuclear arsenals.<ref name="graham2004" /> </blockquote>The treaty is reviewed every five years in meetings called Review Conferences of the Parties to the Treaty of Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Even though the treaty was originally conceived with a limited duration of 25 years, the signing parties decided, by consensus, to unconditionally  extend the treaty indefinitely during the Review Conference in New York City on 11 May 1995, culminating successful U.S. government efforts led by [[Ambassador Thomas Graham Jr.]]

At the time the NPT was proposed, there were predictions of 25–30 nuclear weapon states within 20 years. Instead, over forty years later, five states are not parties to the NPT, and they include the only four additional states believed to possess nuclear weapons.<ref name="graham2004">{{cite web|last=Graham, Jr.|first=Thomas|url=http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_11/BookReview|title=Avoiding the Tipping Point|publisher=Arms Control Association|date=November 2004}}</ref> Several additional measures have been adopted to strengthen the NPT and the broader nuclear nonproliferation regime and make it difficult for states to acquire the capability to produce nuclear weapons, including the export controls of the [[Nuclear Suppliers Group]] and the enhanced verification measures of the [[International Atomic Energy Agency]] (IAEA) [[Additional Protocol]].

Critics argue that the NPT cannot stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons or the motivation to acquire them. They express disappointment with the limited progress on nuclear disarmament, where the five authorized nuclear weapons states still have 22,000 warheads in their combined stockpile and have shown a reluctance to disarm further.{{dubious|date=September 2011}} Several high-ranking officials within the United Nations have said that they can do little to stop states using [[nuclear reactor]]s to produce nuclear weapons.{{dubious|date=September 2011}}<ref name=bks2011>[[Benjamin K. Sovacool]] (2011). ''[[Contesting the Future of Nuclear Power]]: A Critical Global Assessment of Atomic Energy'', [[World Scientific]], pp. 187–190.</ref><ref name=tcr2009/>

==Treaty structure ==
The NPT consists of a preamble and eleven articles. Although the concept of "pillars" is not expressed anywhere in the NPT, the treaty is nevertheless sometimes interpreted as a ''three-pillar'' system,<ref>See, for example, the Canadian government's NPT web site [http://www.international.gc.ca/arms-armes/nuclear-nucleaire/npt-tnp.aspx The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty].</ref> with an implicit balance among them:
# ''[[Nuclear proliferation|non-proliferation]]'',
# ''[[Nuclear disarmament|disarmament]]'', and
# ''[[Nuclear power|the right to peacefully use nuclear technology]]''.<ref>Ambassador [[Sudjadnan Parnohadiningrat]], 26 April 2004, United Nations, New York, [http://www.indonesiamission-ny.org/issuebaru/Events/opening_npt.htm Third Session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2005 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons], furnished by the [[Permanent Mission]] of the Republic of Indonesia to the United Nations (indonesiamission-ny.org) {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051120114626/http://www.indonesiamission-ny.org/issuebaru/Events/opening_npt.htm |date=20 November 2005 }}</ref>
These pillars are interrelated and mutually reinforcing. An effective nonproliferation regime whose members comply with their obligations provides an essential foundation for progress on disarmament and makes possible greater cooperation on the peaceful use of nuclear energy. With the right to access the benefits of peaceful nuclear technology comes the responsibility of nonproliferation. Progress on disarmament reinforces efforts to strengthen the nonproliferation regime and to enforce compliance with obligations, thereby also facilitating peaceful nuclear cooperation.<ref name="state.gov">{{cite web|url=http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/141503.pdf}}</ref>
The "pillars" concept has been questioned by some who believe that the NPT is, as its name suggests, principally about nonproliferation, and who worry that "three pillars" language misleadingly implies that the three elements have equivalent importance.<ref>This view was expressed by Christopher Ford, the U.S. NPT representative at the end of the Bush Administration. See "[http://2001-2009.state.gov/t/isn/rls/rm/98382.htm The 2010 Review Cycle So Far: A View from the United States of America]," presented at Wilton Park, United Kingdom, 20 December 2007.</ref>

===First pillar: non-proliferation===
Under Article I of the NPT, nuclear-weapon states pledge not to transfer nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices to any recipient or in any way assist, encourage or induce any non-nuclear-weapon state in the manufacture or acquisition of a nuclear weapon. 
Under Article II of the NPT, non-nuclear-weapon states pledge not to acquire or exercise control over nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices and not to seek or receive assistance in the manufacture of such devices. Under Article III of the Treaty, non-nuclear-weapon states pledge to accept IAEA safeguards to verify that their nuclear activities serve only peaceful purposes.<ref name="state.gov"/>

Five states are recognized by NPT as nuclear weapon states (NWS): China (signed 1992), France (1992), the Soviet Union (1968; obligations and rights now assumed by the Russian Federation), the United Kingdom (1968), and the United States (1968). (The United States, UK, and the Soviet Union – the [[Grand Alliance (World War II)|World War II's "Big Three"]] — were the only states openly possessing such weapons among the original [[ratification|ratifiers]] of the treaty, which entered into force in 1970). These five nations are also the five permanent members of the [[United Nations Security Council]].

These five NWS agree not to transfer "nuclear weapons or other [[nuclear explosive]] devices" and "not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce" a non-nuclear weapon state (NNWS) to acquire nuclear weapons (Article I). NNWS parties to the NPT agree not to "receive", "manufacture", or "acquire" nuclear weapons or to "seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons" (Article II). NNWS parties also agree to accept safeguards by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to verify that they are not diverting nuclear energy<!--"Nuclear energy" is verbatim from the English text of the treaty. Do not change to "nuclear material."--> from peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other [[nuclear explosive]] devices (Article III).

The five NWS parties have made undertakings not to use their nuclear weapons against a non-NWS party except in response to a nuclear attack, or a conventional attack in alliance with a Nuclear Weapons State. However, these undertakings have not been incorporated formally into the treaty, and the exact details have varied over time. The U.S. also had nuclear warheads targeted at North Korea, a non-NWS, from 1959 until 1991. The previous United Kingdom [[Secretary of State for Defence]], [[Geoff Hoon]], has also explicitly invoked the possibility of the use of the country's nuclear weapons in response to a non-conventional attack by "[[rogue states]]".<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/1883258.stm UK 'prepared to use nuclear weapons'] BBC article dated 20 March 2002</ref> In January 2006, President [[Jacques Chirac]] of France indicated that an incident of state-sponsored terrorism on France could trigger a small-scale nuclear retaliation aimed at destroying the "rogue state's" power centers.<ref>[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4627862.stm France 'would use nuclear arms'], BBC article dated 19 January 2006</ref><ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/19/AR2006011903311.html Chirac: Nuclear Response to Terrorism Is Possible], Washington Post article dated 20 January 2006</ref>

===Second pillar: disarmament===
Under Article VI of the NPT, all Parties undertake to pursue good-faith negotiations on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race, to nuclear disarmament, and to general and complete disarmament.<ref name="state.gov"/>

Article VI of the NPT represents the only binding commitment in a multilateral treaty to the goal of disarmament by the nuclear-weapon states. The NPT's preamble contains language affirming the desire of treaty signatories to ease international tension and strengthen international trust so as to create someday the conditions for a halt to the production of nuclear weapons, and treaty on general and complete disarmament that liquidates, in particular, nuclear weapons and their delivery vehicles from national arsenals.

The wording of the NPT's Article VI arguably imposes only a vague obligation on all NPT signatories to move in the general direction of nuclear and total disarmament, saying, "Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/infcirc140.pdf |title=Information Circulars |work=iaea.org |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20070807060917/http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/infcirc140.pdf |archivedate=7 August 2007 }}</ref> Under this interpretation, Article VI does not strictly require all signatories to actually conclude a disarmament treaty. Rather, it only requires them "to negotiate in good faith."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.acronym.org.uk/docs/0502/doc13.htm |title=U.S. Compliance With Article VI of the NPT |publisher=Acronym.org.uk |date= |accessdate=25 November 2010}}</ref>

On the other hand, some governments, especially non-nuclear-weapon states belonging to the [[Non-Aligned Movement]], have interpreted Article VI's language as being anything but vague. In their view, Article VI constitutes a formal and specific obligation on the NPT-recognized nuclear-weapon states to disarm themselves of nuclear weapons, and argue that these states have failed to meet their obligation.{{Citation needed|date=November 2011}}  The International Court of Justice (ICJ), in its [[International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons|advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons]], issued 8 July 1996, unanimously interprets the text of Article VI as implying that
<blockquote>"There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control."</blockquote>
The ICJ opinion notes that this obligation involves all NPT parties (not just the nuclear weapon states) and does not suggest a specific time frame for nuclear disarmament.<ref name="ICJ">{{cite web|url=http://www.lcnp.org/wcourt/opinion.htm |title=Legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons |date=8 July 1996 |author=The [[International Court of Justice|ICJ]] |accessdate=6 July 2011}}</ref>

Critics of the NPT-recognized nuclear-weapon states (the United States, Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom) sometimes argue that what they view as the failure of the NPT-recognized nuclear weapon states to disarm themselves of nuclear weapons, especially in the post–[[Cold War]] era, has angered some non-nuclear-weapon NPT signatories of the NPT. Such failure, these critics add, provides justification for the non-nuclear-weapon signatories to quit the NPT and develop their own nuclear arsenals.<ref>[http://www.conceptpub.com/servlet/Getbiblio?bno=00001102, Mishra, J. "NPT and the Developing Countries", ''(Concept Publishing Company, 2008)''].</ref>

Other observers have suggested that the linkage between proliferation and disarmament may also work the other way, i.e., that the failure to resolve proliferation threats in Iran and North Korea, for instance, will cripple the prospects for disarmament.{{Citation needed|date=November 2008}}  No current nuclear weapons state, the argument goes, would seriously consider eliminating its last nuclear weapons without high confidence that other countries would not acquire them. Some observers have even suggested that the very progress of disarmament by the superpowers—which has led to the elimination of thousands of weapons and delivery systems<ref>See, e.g., [http://www.state.gov/t/isn/rls/other/81946.htm Disarmament, the United States, and the NPT], Christopher Ford, U.S. Special Representative for Nuclear Nonproliferation, delivered at the Conference on "Preparing for 2010: Getting the Process Right," Annecy, France, 17 March 2007; [http://geneva.usmission.gov/CD/updates/0430USstatementNPT.html Nuclear Disarmament Progress and Challenges in the Post-Cold War World], U.S. statement to the Second Session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2010 NPT Review Conference, Geneva (30 April 2008) {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080626110418/http://www.state.gov/t/isn/rls/other/81946.htm |date=26 June 2008 }}</ref>—could eventually make the possession of nuclear weapons more attractive by increasing the perceived strategic value of a small arsenal. As one U.S. official and NPT expert warned in 2007, "logic suggests that as the number of nuclear weapons decreases, the 'marginal utility' of a nuclear weapon as an instrument of military power increases. At the extreme, which it is precisely disarmament's hope to create, the strategic utility of even one or two nuclear weapons would be huge."<ref>[http://merln.ndu.edu/archivepdf/wmd/State/92733.pdf U.S. Special Representative for Nuclear Nonproliferation Christopher Ford, "Disarmament and Non-Nuclear Stability in Tomorrow's World," remarks to the Conference on Disarmament and Nonproliferation Issues, Nagasaki, Japan (31 August 2007)].</ref>

===Third pillar: peaceful use of nuclear energy===
NPT Article IV acknowledges the right of all Parties to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes and to benefit from international cooperation in this area, in conformity with their nonproliferation obligations. Article IV also encourages such cooperation.<ref name="state.gov"/>

The third pillar allows for and agrees upon the transfer of nuclear technology and materials to NPT signatory countries for the development of civilian nuclear energy programs in those countries, as long as they can demonstrate that their nuclear programs are not being used for the development of nuclear weapons.<ref>{{Cite book|title = American Global Challenges: The Obama Era|url = https://books.google.com/books?id=ad7HAAAAQBAJ|publisher = Palgrave Macmillan|date = 2011-05-24|isbn = 9780230119116|first = Mohammed M.|last = Zaki}}</ref>

Since very few of the states with [[nuclear power|nuclear energy]] programs are willing to abandon the use of nuclear energy, the third pillar of the NPT under Article IV provides other states with the possibility to do the same, but under conditions intended to make it difficult to develop nuclear weapons.<ref>{{cite web|url = http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/141503.pdf|title = Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons|date = |accessdate = 8 October 2015|website = |publisher = |last = |first = }}</ref>

The treaty recognizes the inalienable right of sovereign states to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, but restricts this right for NPT parties to be exercised "in conformity with Articles I and II" (the basic nonproliferation obligations that constitute the "first pillar" of the treaty). As the commercially popular [[light water reactor]] [[nuclear power station]] uses enriched uranium fuel, it follows that states must be able either to enrich uranium or purchase it on an international market. [[Mohamed ElBaradei]], then Director General of the [[International Atomic Energy Agency]], has called the spread of enrichment and reprocessing capabilities the "[[Achilles' heel]]" of the nuclear nonproliferation regime. As of 2007 13 states have an enrichment capability.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Transcripts/2007/ft190207.html |date=19 February 2007 |title=Director General's Interview on Iran and DPRK |author=Daniel Dombey |publisher=[[Financial Times]] |accessdate=4 May 2006 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20070222120753/http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Transcripts/2007/ft190207.html |archivedate=22 February 2007 }}</ref>

Because the availability of fissile material has long been considered the principal obstacle to, and "pacing element" for, a country's nuclear weapons development effort, it was declared a major emphasis of U.S. policy in 2004 to prevent the further spread of uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing (a.k.a. "ENR") technology.<ref>See Remarks by President Bush at the National Defense University (11 February 2004), available at http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2004/02/20040211-4.html (announcing initiative to stop spread of ENR technology).</ref>  Countries possessing ENR capabilities, it is feared, have what is in effect the option of using this capability to produce fissile material for weapons use on demand, thus giving them what has been termed a "virtual" nuclear weapons program.<ref name=bbc-20061016>{{cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6055984.stm |title=IAEA predicts more nuclear states |publisher=BBC |date=16 October 2006 |accessdate=12 March 2016}}</ref> The degree to which NPT members have a "right" to ENR technology notwithstanding its potentially grave proliferation implications, therefore, is at the cutting edge of policy and legal debates surrounding the meaning of Article IV and its relation to Articles I, II, and III of the treaty.

Countries that have signed the treaty as Non-Nuclear Weapons States and maintained that status have an unbroken record of not building nuclear weapons. However, Iraq was cited by the IAEA with punitive sanctions enacted against it by the UN Security Council for violating its NPT safeguards obligations; North Korea never came into compliance with its NPT safeguards agreement and was cited repeatedly for these violations,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaDprk/dprk.pdf |accessdate=28 March 2007 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20070607003906/http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaDprk/dprk.pdf |archivedate=7 June 2007 }} and http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/MediaAdvisory/2003/med-advise_048.shtml</ref> and later withdrew from the NPT and tested multiple nuclear devices; Iran was found in non-compliance with its NPT safeguards obligations in an unusual non-consensus decision because it "failed in a number of instances over an extended period of time" to report aspects of its enrichment program;<ref name="IAEA-GOV/2003/75">{{Cite journal|url=http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2003/gov2003-75.pdf |accessdate=25 October 2007 |title=Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran |date=10 November 2003 |id=GOV/2003/75 |publisher=IAEA |format=PDF |postscript=<!--None--> |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20071025173821/http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2003/gov2003-75.pdf |archivedate=25 October 2007 }}</ref><ref name="IAEA-GOV/2005/77">{{Cite journal|url=http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2005/gov2005-77.pdf |accessdate=25 October 2007 |title=Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran |date=24 September 2005 |id=GOV/2005/77 |publisher=IAEA |format=PDF |postscript=<!--None--> |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20071025173708/http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2005/gov2005-77.pdf |archivedate=25 October 2007 }}</ref> and Libya pursued a clandestine nuclear weapons program before abandoning it in December 2003.

In 1991, Romania reported previously undeclared nuclear activities by the former regime and the IAEA reported this non-compliance to the Security Council for information only. In some regions, the fact that all neighbors are verifiably free of nuclear weapons reduces any pressure individual states might feel to build those weapons themselves, even if neighbors are known to have peaceful nuclear energy programs that might otherwise be suspicious. In this, the treaty works as designed.

In 2004, [[Mohamed ElBaradei]] said that by some estimates thirty-five to forty states could have the knowledge to develop nuclear weapons.<ref>{{Cite journal|url=http://www.unidir.org/pdf/articles/pdf-art2185.pdf |format=PDF |title=Preserving the Non-Proliferation Treaty |author=Mohamed ElBaradei |publisher=Disarmament Forum |year=2004 |accessdate=17 November 2007 |postscript=<!--None--> |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20071127093014/http://www.unidir.org/pdf/articles/pdf-art2185.pdf |archivedate=27 November 2007 }}</ref>

==Key articles==
''Article I'':<ref name="NPT">{{cite web|url=http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/infcirc140.pdf |title=Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (PDF) – IAEA |format=PDF |date= |accessdate=25 November 2010 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20101202051735/http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/infcirc140.pdf |archivedate=2 December 2010 }}</ref> Each nuclear-weapons state (NWS) undertakes not to transfer, to any recipient, nuclear weapons, or other nuclear explosive devices, and not to assist any non-nuclear weapon state to manufacture or acquire such weapons or devices.

''Article II'': Each non-NWS party undertakes not to receive, from any source, nuclear weapons, or other nuclear explosive devices; not to manufacture or acquire such weapons or devices; and not to receive any assistance in their manufacture.

''Article III'': Each non-NWS party undertakes to conclude an agreement with the IAEA for the application of its safeguards to all nuclear material in all of the state's peaceful nuclear activities and to prevent diversion of such material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

''Article IV'': 1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.

2. All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also co-operate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.

''Article VI'': Each party "undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control".

''Article IX'': "For the purposes of this Treaty, a nuclear-weapon State is one which has manufactured and exploded a nuclear weapon or other nuclear explosive device prior to 1 January, 1967."

''Article X'': Establishes the right to withdraw from the Treaty giving 3 months' notice. It also establishes the duration of the Treaty (25 years before 1995 Extension Initiative).

==History==
[[File:NPT Effective.svg|thumb|350px|Date NPT first effective (including USSR, YU, CS of that time)<br>
{{legend0|#0000aa|1st decade: ratified or acceded 1968–1977}}<br>
{{legend0|#00a000|2nd decade: ratified or acceded 1978–1987}}<br>
{{legend0|orange|3rd decade: ratified or acceded since 1988}}<br>
{{legend0|#ff1111|Never signed (India, Israel, Pakistan, South Sudan)}} ]]
{{See also|Nuclear proliferation}}
The impetus behind the NPT was concern for the safety of a world with many nuclear weapon states. It was recognized that the [[cold war]] deterrent relationship between just the United States and [[Soviet Union]] was fragile. Having more nuclear-weapon states would reduce security for all, multiplying the risks of miscalculation, accidents, unauthorized use of weapons, or from escalation in tensions, nuclear conflict. Moreover, the use of nuclear weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, it has been apparent that the development of nuclear capabilities by States could enable them to divert technology and materials for weapons purposes. Thus, the problem of preventing such diversions became a central issue in discussions on peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

Initial efforts, which began in 1946, to create an international system enabling all States to have access to nuclear technology under appropriate safeguards, were terminated in 1949 without the achievement of this objective, due to serious political differences between the major Powers. By then, both the United State and the former Soviet Union had tested nuclear weapons, and were beginning to build their stockpiles.

In December 1953, US President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his "[[Atoms for Peace]]" proposal, presented to the eighth session of the United Nations General Assembly, urged that an international organization be established to disseminate peaceful nuclear technology, while guarding against development of weapons capabilities in additional countries. His proposal resulted in 1957 in the establishment of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which was charged with the dual responsibility of promotion and control of nuclear technology. IAEA technical activities began in 1958. An interim safeguards system for small nuclear reactors, put in place in 1961, was replaced in 1964 by a system covering larger installations and, over the following years, was expanded to include additional nuclear facilities. In recent years, efforts to strengthen the effectiveness and improve the efficiency of the IAEA safeguards system culminated in the approval of the Model Additional Protocol by the IAEA Board of Governors in May 1997.

Within the framework of the United Nations, the principle of nuclear non-proliferation was addressed in negotiations as early as 1957. The NPT process was launched by [[Frank Aiken]], Irish Minister for External Affairs, in 1958. The NPT gained significant momentum in the early 1960s. The structure of a treaty to uphold nuclear non-proliferation as a norm of international behaviour had become clear by the mid-1960s, and by 1968 final agreement had been reached on a Treaty that would prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons, enable cooperation for the peaceful use of nuclear energy, and further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament. It was opened for signature in 1968, with Finland the first [[List of parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty|State to sign]]. Accession became nearly universal after the end of the [[Cold War]] and of South African [[apartheid]]. In 1992, China and France acceded to the NPT, the last of the five nuclear powers recognized by the treaty to do so.

The Treaty provided, in article X, for a conference to be convened 25 years after its entry into force to decided whether the Treaty should continue in force indefinitely, or be extended for an additional fixed period of periods. Accordingly, at the NPT Review and Extension Conference in May 1995, States parties to the Treaty agreed-without a vote-on the Treaty's indefinited extension, and decided that review conferences should continue to be held every five years. After Brazil acceded to the NPT in 1998, the only remaining non-nuclear-weapons state which had not signed was Cuba, which joined NPT (and the [[Treaty of Tlatelolco]] [[NWFZ]]) in 2002.

Several NPT signatories have given up nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons programs.  South Africa undertook a nuclear weapons program, but has since renounced it and signed the treaty in 1991 after destroying its small nuclear [[arsenal]]; after this, the remaining African countries signed the treaty. The [[former Soviet Republics]] where nuclear weapons had been based, namely Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan, transferred those weapons to Russia and joined NPT by 1994 following the signature of the [[Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances]].{{citation needed|date=March 2014}}

Successor states from the breakups of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia also joined the treaty soon after their independence. Montenegro and East Timor were the last countries to sign the treaty on their independence in 2006 and 2003; the only other country to sign in the 21st century was Cuba in 2002. The three Micronesian countries in [[Compact of Free Association]] with the USA joined NPT in 1995, along with Vanuatu.

Major South American countries Argentina, Chile, and Brazil joined in 1995 and 1998. Arabian Peninsula countries included Saudi Arabia and Bahrain in 1988, Qatar and Kuwait in 1989, UAE in 1995, and Oman in 1997. The tiny European states of Monaco and Andorra joined in 1995-6. Also signing in the 1990s were Myanmar in 1992 and Guyana in 1993.

===United States–NATO nuclear weapons sharing===
{{Main article|Nuclear sharing}}
[[File:nwfz.svg|thumb|350px|
{{legend0|#0000FF|[[Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone]]s}}<br>
{{legend0|#FF0000|[[Nuclear weapons states]]}}<br>
{{legend0|#FF8800|[[Nuclear sharing]]}}<br>
{{legend0|#dddd00|Neither, but NPT}} ]]

At the time the treaty was being negotiated, [[NATO]] had in place secret [[Nuclear sharing|nuclear weapons sharing]] agreements whereby the United States provided nuclear weapons to be deployed by, and stored in, other NATO states. Some argue this is an act of proliferation violating Articles I and II of the treaty. A counter-argument is that the U.S. controlled the weapons in storage within the NATO states, and that no transfer of the weapons or control over them was intended "unless and until a decision were made to go to war, at which the treaty would no longer be controlling", so there is no breach of the NPT.<ref name=Donnelly>{{citation|url=http://www.opanal.org/Articles/cancun/can-Donnelly.htm |title=The Nuclear Weapons Non-Proliferation Articles I, II and VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons |author=Brian Donnelly, [[Foreign and Commonwealth Office]] |publisher=Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean |accessdate=2009-08-07 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20090105200406/http://www.opanal.org/Articles/cancun/can-Donnelly.htm |archivedate=5 January 2009 }}</ref> These agreements were disclosed to a few of the states, including the [[Soviet Union]], negotiating the treaty, but most of the states that signed the NPT in 1968 would not have known about these agreements and interpretations at that time.<ref name="is_it_legal">Otfried Nassauer, Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (ieer.org), Science for Democratic Action Volume 9 Number 3, May 2001, [http://www.ieer.org/sdafiles/vol_9/9-3/nato.html Nuclear Sharing in NATO: Is it Legal?]</ref>

As of 2005, it is estimated that the United States still provides about 180 tactical [[B61 nuclear bomb]]s for use by Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey under these NATO agreements.<ref name="nrdc eur">Hans M. Kristensen, National Resources Defence Council (nrdc.org), February 2005, [http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/euro/euro.pdf U.S. Nuclear Weapons in Europe: A Review of Post-Cold War Policy, Force Levels, and War Planning]</ref> Many states, and the [[Non-Aligned Movement]], now argue this violates Articles I and II of the treaty, and are applying diplomatic pressure to terminate these agreements. They point out that the pilots and other staff of the "non-nuclear" NATO states practice handling and delivering the U.S. nuclear bombs, and non-U.S. warplanes have been adapted to deliver U.S. nuclear bombs which must have involved the transfer of some technical nuclear weapons information. <!-- Possible OR with no citation: Even if the NATO argument is considered legally correct, such peacetime operations contravene both the objective and the spirit of the NPT. -->NATO believes its "nuclear forces continue to play an essential role in war prevention, but their role is now more fundamentally political".<ref>NATO (nato.int), [http://www.nato.int/issues/nuclear/sec-environment.htm NATO's Nuclear Forces in the New Security Environment] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050829191259/http://www.nato.int/issues/nuclear/sec-environment.htm |date=29 August 2005 }}</ref>

U.S. nuclear sharing policies were originally designed to help prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons—not least by persuading the then West Germany not to develop an independent nuclear capability by assuring it that West Germany would be able, in the event of war with the Warsaw Pact, to wield (U.S.) nuclear weapons in self-defense. (Until that point of all-out war, however, the weapons themselves would remain in U.S. hands.) The point was to limit the spread of countries having their own nuclear weapons programs, helping ensure that NATO allies would not choose to go down the proliferation route.<ref>See, e.g., U.S. Director of Central Intelligence, Likelihood and Consequences of a Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Systems, declassified U.S. National Intelligence Estimate, NIE 4–63 (28 June 1963), at p.17, paragraph 40.</ref> (West Germany was discussed in U.S. intelligence estimates for a number of years as being a country with the potential to develop nuclear weapons capabilities of its own if officials in Bonn were not convinced that their defense against the Soviet Union and its allies could otherwise be met.<ref>See, e.g., U.S. Director of Central Intelligence, Annex to National Intelligence Estimate No. 100-2-58: Development of Nuclear Capabilities by Fourth Countries: Likelihood and Consequences, declassified U.S. National Intelligence Estimate, NIE 100-2-58 (1 July 1958), at p.4, paragraphs 18–19; U.S. Director of Central Intelligence, Likelihood and Consequences of the Development of Nuclear Capabilities by Additional Countries, declassified U.S. National Intelligence Estimate, NIE 100-4-60 (20 September 1960), at p. 2, paragraph 4, & p.8, paragraphs 27–29.</ref>)

===Non-signatories===
Four states—India, Israel, Pakistan, and South Sudan—have never signed the treaty. India and Pakistan have publicly disclosed their nuclear weapon programs, and Israel has a long-standing [[policy of deliberate ambiguity]] with regards to its nuclear program (see [[List of countries with nuclear weapons]]).

====India====
{{See also|India and weapons of mass destruction}}

India has detonated nuclear devices, [[Smiling Buddha|first]] in 1974 and [[Pokhran-II|again]] in 1998.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2029293.stm|title=A-bomb victims warn of nuclear horror|publisher=BBC News}}</ref> India is estimated to have enough fissile material for more than 150 warheads.<ref name="auto">{{cite web|last1=Tellis|first1=Ashley J.|title=Atoms for War?|url=http://carnegieendowment.org/files/atomsforwarfinal4.pdf|website=Carnegie Endowment for International Peace|accessdate=24 October 2015}}</ref> India was among the few countries to have a [[no first use]] policy, a pledge not to use nuclear weapons unless first attacked by an adversary using nuclear weapons, however India's former [[National Security Advisor (India)|NSA]] [[Shivshankar Menon]] signaled ''a significant shift from "no first use" to "no first use against non-nuclear weapon states"'' in a speech on the occasion of Golden Jubilee celebrations of the [[National Defence College, India|National Defence College]] in [[New Delhi]] on 21 October 2010, a doctrine Menon said reflected India's "strategic culture, with its emphasis on minimal deterrence".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://indiablooms.com/NewsDetailsPage/2010/newsDetails211010n.php |title=NSA Shivshankar Menon at NDC (Speech) |publisher=india Blooms |date= |accessdate=30 April 2013}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.indianembassy.org/policy/CTBT/nuclear_doctrine_aug_17_1999.html|title=Draft Report of National Security Advisory Board on Indian Nuclear Doctrine|last=|first=|date=|website=Embassy of India Washington D.C.|publisher=|accessdate=30 April 2013|deadurl=yes|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20091205231912/http://www.indianembassy.org/policy/CTBT/nuclear_doctrine_aug_17_1999.html|archivedate=5 December 2009}}</ref>

India argues that the NPT creates a club of "nuclear haves" and a larger group of "nuclear have-nots" by restricting the legal possession of nuclear weapons to those states that tested them before 1967, but the treaty never explains on what ethical grounds such a distinction is valid. India's then External Affairs Minister [[Pranab Mukherjee]] said during a visit to Tokyo in 2007: "If India did not sign the NPT, it is not because of its lack of commitment for non-proliferation, but because we consider NPT as a flawed treaty and it did not recognize the need for universal, non-discriminatory verification and treatment."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.whereincity.com/news/3/15197 |title=India seeks Japan's support, calls NPT 'flawed' |publisher=Whereincity.com |date=24 March 2007 |accessdate=25 November 2010 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120112151514/http://www.whereincity.com/news/3/15197 |archivedate=12 January 2012 }}</ref> Although there have been unofficial discussions on creating a South Asian nuclear weapons free zone, including India and Pakistan, this is considered to be highly unlikely for the foreseeable future.<ref>{{Cite book|title=The Obstacles to a South Asian Nuclear-Weapons-Free-Zone|last=Banerjee|first=Dipankar|work=Nuclear Weapons-Free Zones|publisher=Macmillan|year=1998|isbn=0-333-73980-9|editor-last=Thakur|editor-first=Ramesh|location=London|pages=|via=}}</ref>

In early March 2006, India and the United States finalized an agreement, in the face of criticism in both countries, to restart cooperation on civilian nuclear technology. Under the deal India has committed to classify 14 of its 22 nuclear power plants as being for civilian use and to place them under [[IAEA]] safeguards. [[Mohamed ElBaradei]], then Director General of the IAEA, welcomed the deal by calling India "an important partner in the non-proliferation regime."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://merln.ndu.edu/archivepdf/iran/State/66861.pdf |title=Remarks With International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei |format=PDF |date= |accessdate=25 November 2010}}</ref>

In December 2006, [[United States Congress]] approved the [[United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act]], endorsing a deal that was forged during Prime Minister Singh's visit to the United States in July 2005 and cemented during President Bush's visit to India earlier in 2006. The legislation allows for the transfer of civilian nuclear material to India. Despite its status outside the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, nuclear cooperation with India was permitted on the basis of its clean non-proliferation record, and India's need for energy fueled by its rapid industrialization and a billion-plus population.<ref>{{cite web|author=(AFP) – 1 October 2008 |url=http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5geN2RWjoN4oJhPibc7rhkyxMXfzg |title=AFP: India energised by nuclear pacts |publisher=Afp.google.com |date=1 October 2008 |accessdate=25 November 2010 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110520182512/http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5geN2RWjoN4oJhPibc7rhkyxMXfzg |archivedate=20 May 2011 }}</ref>

On 1 August 2008, the IAEA approved the India Safeguards Agreement<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2008/board010808.html |title=IAEA Board Approves India-Safeguards Agreement |publisher=Iaea.org |date= |accessdate=25 November 2010}}</ref> and on 6 September 2008, India was granted the waiver at the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) meeting held in Vienna, Austria. The consensus was arrived after overcoming misgivings expressed by Austria, Ireland and New Zealand and is an unprecedented step in giving exemption to a country, which has not signed the NPT and the [[Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty]] (CTBT).<ref name="NSG CLEARS NUCLEAR WAIVER FOR INDIA">{{cite news|url=http://www.ibnlive.com/news/nsg-clears-nuclear-waiver-for-india/73011-3.html?from=rssfeed|title=NSG CLEARS NUCLEAR WAIVER FOR INDIA|date=6 September 2008|publisher=CNN-IBN|accessdate=6 September 2008}}</ref><ref name="INDIA JOINS NUCLEAR CLUB, GETS NSG WAIVER">{{cite news|url=http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20080064332 |title=INDIA JOINS NUCLEAR CLUB, GETS NSG WAIVER |date=6 September 2008 |publisher=NDTV.com |accessdate=6 September 2008 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20080908231453/http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20080064332 |archivedate=8 September 2008 }}</ref> While India could commence nuclear trade with other willing countries.{{Clarify|date=April 2015}}<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/11/AR2008091103099.html | work=The Washington Post | title=Yes for an Answer | date=12 September 2008 | accessdate=20 May 2010}}</ref> The U.S. Congress approved this agreement and President Bush signed it on 8 October 2008.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/10/20081008-4.html |title=President Bush Signs H.R. 7081, the United States-India Nuclear Cooperation Approval and Nonproliferation Enhancement Act |publisher=Georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov |date=8 October 2008 |accessdate=25 November 2010}}</ref>

When China announced expanded nuclear cooperation with Pakistan in 2010, proponents of [[Arms control treaty|arms control]] denounced both the deals, claiming that they weakened the NPT by facilitating nuclear programmes in states which are not parties to the NPT.<ref name=globalissues/>

{{as of|January 2011}}, Australia, a [[Uranium mining in Australia|top three producer and home to worlds largest known reserves]], had continued its refusal to export Uranium to India despite diplomatic pressure from India.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/20/3117556.htm |title=Rudd resists India's push for uranium deal |publisher=[[ABC Online]] |date=20 January 2011 |accessdate=20 January 2011}}</ref>
In November 2011 the Australian Prime Minister announced a desire to allow exports to India,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/an-opportunity-for-sound-and-fury-signifying-something-20111114-1nfi3.html?skin=text-only |title=An opportunity for sound and fury signifying something  |publisher=The Age |date=15 November 2011 |accessdate=15 November 2011}}</ref> a policy change which was authorized by her party's national conference in December.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-15/pm-proposes-lifting-uranium-ban/3666362 |title=PM changes mind on uranium sales to India |publisher=[[ABC Online]] |date=15 November 2011 |accessdate=15 November 2011}}</ref> On 4 December 2011, Prime Minister Julia Gillard overturned Australia's long-standing ban on exporting uranium to India.<ref name="BBC News">{{cite web|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-16021428 |title=Australia's Labor party backs uranium sales to India |publisher=BBC News |date=4 December 2011 |accessdate=4 December 2011}}</ref> She further said "We should take a decision in the national interest, a decision about strengthening our strategic partnership with India in this the Asian century," and said that any agreement to sell uranium to India would include strict safeguards to ensure it would only be used for civilian purposes, and not end up in nuclear weapons.<ref name="BBC News"/> On Sep 5, 2014; Australian Prime Minister [[Tony Abbott]] sealed a civil nuclear deal to sell uranium to India. "We signed a nuclear cooperation agreement because Australia trusts India to do the right thing in this area, as it has been doing in other areas," Abbott told reporters after he and Indian Prime Minister [[Narendra Modi]] signed a pact to sell uranium for peaceful power generation.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://in.reuters.com/article/2014/09/05/india-australia-nuclear-deal-idINKBN0H00MX20140905|title=India and Australia seal civil nuclear deal for uranium trade|work=Reuters India}}</ref>

====Pakistan====
{{See also|Pakistan and weapons of mass destruction}}

In May 1998, following India's [[Pokhran-II|nuclear tests]] earlier that month, Pakistan conducted two sets of nuclear tests, the [[Chagai-I]] and [[Chagai-II]].  Although there is little confirmed information in public, as of 2015, Pakistan was estimated to have as many as 120 warheads.<ref name="auto"/><ref>{{cite web|url=http://archives.dawn.com/2007/12/03/top7.htm |title=Impact of US wargames on Pakistan N-arms 'negative' |author=Anwar Iqbal |work=dawn.com |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130927231236/http://archives.dawn.com/2007/12/03/top7.htm |archivedate=27 September 2013 }}</ref>  According to analyses of the [[Carnegie Endowment for International Peace]] and the [[Stimson Center]], Pakistan has enough fissile material for 350 warheads.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Craig|first1=Tim|title=Report: Pakistan's nuclear arsenal could become the world's third-biggest|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/report-pakistans-nuclear-arsenal-could-become-the-worlds-third-biggest/2015/08/26/6098478a-4c0c-11e5-80c2-106ea7fb80d4_story.html|website=The Washington Post|accessdate=24 October 2015|date=27 August 2015}}</ref>

Like India, Pakistani officials argue that the NPT is discriminatory.  When asked at a briefing in 2015 whether Islamabad would sign the NPT if Washington requested it, [[Foreign Secretary (Pakistan)|Foreign Secretary]] [[Aizaz Ahmad Chaudhry]] was quoted as responding "It is a discriminatory treaty. Pakistan has the right to defend itself, so Pakistan will not sign the NPT. Why should we?."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.dawn.com/news/1185843|title=Pakistan will not sign NPT, says foreign secretary|author=Anwar Iqbal|publisher=}}</ref> Until 2010, Pakistan had always maintained the position that it would sign the NPT if India did so. In 2010, Pakistan abandoned this historic position and stated that it would join the NPT only as a recognized nuclear-weapon state.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/PakistanagainstsigningtheNPTasanon-nuclearweaponsstate_cvsastry_080310.html|title=Pakistan against signing the NPT as a non-nuclear weapons state|publisher=}}</ref>

The NSG Guidelines currently rule out nuclear exports by all major suppliers to Pakistan, with very narrow exceptions, since it does not have full-scope IAEA safeguards (i.e. safeguards on all its nuclear activities). Pakistan has sought to reach an agreement similar to that with India,<ref>BBC (bbc.co.uk), 2 March 2006, [http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/south_asia/4764826.stm US and India seal nuclear accord]</ref> but these efforts have been rebuffed by the United States and other NSG members, on the grounds that Pakistan's track record as a nuclear proliferator makes it impossible for it to have any sort of nuclear deal in the near future.{{citation needed|date=September 2015}}

By 2010, China reportedly signed a civil nuclear agreement with Pakistan, using the justification that the deal was "peaceful."<ref name=BBCUK>{{cite news|title=BBC News – China says Pakistan nuclear deal 'peaceful'|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10340642|accessdate=12 March 2012|newspaper=BBC News|date=17 June 2010}}</ref> The British government criticized this, on the grounds that 'the time is not yet right for a civil nuclear deal with Pakistan'.<ref name=globalissues>{{cite news|title=White House Low-Key on China-Pakistan Nuke Deal|url=http://www.globalissues.org/news/2010/06/30/6161|accessdate=12 March 2012|newspaper=Global Issues|date=30 June 2010}}</ref>  China did not seek formal approval from the [[Nuclear Suppliers Group|nuclear suppliers group]], and claimed instead that its cooperation with Pakistan was "grandfathered" when China joined the NSG, a claim that was disputed by other NSG members.<ref name=nti.org>{{cite news|title=The China-Pakistan Nuclear Deal: A Realpolitique Fait Accompli|url=http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/china-pakistan-nuclear-deal-realpolitique-fait-accompli-1/|accessdate=12 March 2012|newspaper=NTI}}</ref> [[Pakistan]] applied for membership on May 19, 2016,<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.dawn.com/news/1266036|title=NSG to take up Pakistan, India's membership requests this week|publisher=Dawn|others=retrieved on 2016-06-23}}</ref> supported by Turkey and China.<ref>{{citation|url=http://indianexpress.com/article/world/world-news/pakistan-appreciates-chinas-unequivocal-support-for-admission-in-nsg-2871393/|title=Pakistan appreciates China's unequivocal support for admission in NSG|publisher=The Indian Express|others=retrieved June 25, 2016}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://m.timesofindia.com/india/Kiwis-soft-on-Indias-NSG-bid-Turkey-backs-Pak/articleshow/52771233.cms|title=Kiwis soft on India's NSG bid, Turkey backs Pak - TOI Mobile {{!}} The Times of India Mobile Site|website=m.timesofindia.com|access-date=2016-06-20}}</ref>  However, many NSG members opposed Pakistan's membership bid due to its track record, including the illicit procurement network of Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan, which aided the nuclear programs of Iran, Libya and North Korea.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.reuters.com/article/us-india-nuclear-china-idUSKCN0YY06F|title=China says more talks needed to build consensus on nuclear export club|date=12 June 2016|publisher=|via=Reuters}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/1453353/Ive-sold-nuclear-secrets-to-Libya-Iran-and-N-Korea.html|title=I've sold nuclear secrets to Libya, Iran and N Korea|last=Guardia|first=By Ahmed Rashid in Lahore and Anton La|publisher=}}</ref> Pakistani officials reiterated the request in August 2016.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://indianexpress.com/article/world/world-news/pakistan-launches-fresh-push-for-nsg-membership-2992336/|title=Pakistan launches fresh push for NSG membership|date=2016-08-23|access-date=2016-08-24}}</ref>

====Israel====

{{See also|Israel and weapons of mass destruction}}

Israel has a long-standing [[policy of deliberate ambiguity]] with regards to its nuclear program (see [[List of countries with nuclear weapons]]). Israel has been developing nuclear technology at its [[Dimona]] site in the [[Negev]] since 1958, and some nonproliferation analysts estimate that Israel may have stockpiled between 100 and 200 warheads using reprocessed plutonium. The position on the NPT is explained in terms of "Israeli exceptionality", a term coined by Professor [[Gerald M. Steinberg]], in reference to the perception that the country's small size, overall vulnerability, as well as the history of deep hostility and large-scale attacks by neighboring states, require a deterrent capability.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Steinberg|first=Gerald|date=2006|title=EXAMINING ISRAEL'S NPT EXCEPTIONALITY: 1998–2005|url=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10736700600861376?journalCode=rnpr20|journal=Ther NonProliferation Review|volume=13|issue=1|doi=|pmid=|access-date=|via=}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|title=The Worst Kept Secret|last=Cohen|first=Avner|publisher=Columbia University Press|year=2010|isbn=|location=New York|pages=266|via=}}</ref>

The Israeli government refuses to confirm or deny possession of nuclear weapons, although this is now regarded as an open secret after Israeli low level nuclear technician [[Mordechai Vanunu]]—subsequently arrested and sentenced for treason by Israel—published evidence about the program to the British ''[[The Sunday Times (UK)|Sunday Times]]'' in 1986.

On 18 September 2009 the General Conference of the [[International Atomic Energy Agency]] called on Israel to open its nuclear facilities to IAEA inspection and adhere to the non-proliferation treaty as part of a resolution on "Israeli nuclear capabilities," which passed by a narrow margin of 49–45 with 16 abstentions. The chief Israeli delegate stated that "Israel will not co-operate in any matter with this resolution."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/09/2009918173136830771.html |title=Israel pressured on nuclear sites – Middle East |publisher=Al Jazeera English |date=18 September 2009 |accessdate=25 November 2010}}</ref>  However, similar resolutions were defeated in 2010, 2013 and 2014.{{citation needed|date=September 2015}} As with Pakistan, the NSG Guidelines currently rule out nuclear exports by all major suppliers to Israel.

===North Korea===
{{See also|North Korea and weapons of mass destruction|2006 North Korean nuclear test|Six-party talks}}
North Korea ratified the treaty on 12 December 1985, but gave notice of withdrawal from the treaty on 10 January 2003 following U.S. allegations that it had started an illegal [[enriched uranium]] weapons program, and the U.S. subsequently stopping [[fuel oil]] shipments under the [[Agreed Framework]]<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/infcirc457.pdf |title=Text of Agreed Framework |format=PDF |date= |accessdate=25 November 2010 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110604091657/http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/infcirc457.pdf |archivedate=4 June 2011 }}</ref> which had resolved plutonium weapons issues in 1994.<ref>Korean News Service, Tokyo (kcna.co.jp), 10 January 2003, [http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2003/200301/news01/11.htm#1 Statement of DPRK Government on its withdrawal from NPT]</ref> The withdrawal became effective 10 April 2003 making North Korea the first state ever to withdraw from the treaty.<ref>Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (wagingpeace.org), 10 April 2003, [http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2003/04/10_chaffee_korea-npt.htm North Korea's Withdrawal from Nonproliferation Treaty Official] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060412044216/http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2003/04/10_chaffee_korea-npt.htm |date=12 April 2006 }}</ref> North Korea had once before announced withdrawal, on 12 March 1993, but suspended that notice before it came into effect.<ref>International Atomic Energy Agency (iaea.org), May 2003, [http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Focus/IaeaDprk/fact_sheet_may2003.shtml Fact Sheet on DPRK Nuclear Safeguards]</ref>

On 10 February 2005, North Korea publicly declared that it possessed nuclear weapons and pulled out of the [[six-party talks]] hosted by China to find a diplomatic solution to the issue. "We had already taken the resolute action of pulling out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and have manufactured nuclear arms for self-defence to cope with the Bush administration's evermore undisguised policy to isolate and stifle the DPRK [Democratic People's Republic of Korea]," a North Korean Foreign Ministry statement said regarding the issue.<ref>Korean News Service, Tokyo (kcna.co.jp), February 2005, [http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2005/200502/news02/11.htm#1 DPRK FM on Its Stand to Suspend Its Participation in Six-party Talks for Indefinite Period]</ref> Six-party talks resumed in July 2005.

On 19 September 2005, North Korea announced that it would agree to a preliminary accord. Under the accord, North Korea would scrap all of its existing nuclear weapons and nuclear production facilities, rejoin the NPT, and readmit IAEA inspectors. The difficult issue of the supply of [[light water reactor]]s to replace North Korea's [[Yongbyon Reactors|indigenous nuclear power plant program]], as per the 1994 [[Agreed Framework]], was left to be resolved in future discussions.<ref>{{cite news |first=Joseph |last=Khan |authorlink= |coauthors= |title=North Korea Says It Will Abandon Nuclear Efforts |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/19/international/asia/19korea.html |work=New York Times |publisher= |date=19 September 2005 |accessdate= }}</ref> On the next day North Korea reiterated its known view that until it is supplied with a light water reactor it will not dismantle its nuclear arsenal or rejoin the NPT.<ref>Agence France Presse, 2006, [http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp_asiapacific/view/169237/1/.html N. Korea raises stakes on nuclear deal with reactor demand], furnished by Media Corp News (channelnewsasia.com), 20 September 2005</ref>

On 2 October 2006, the North Korean foreign minister announced that his country was planning to conduct a nuclear test "in the future", although it did not state when.<ref>[[BBC]] (news.bbc.co.uk), 3 October 2006, [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/5402018.stm N Korea 'to conduct nuclear test']</ref> On Monday, 9 October 2006 at 01:35:28 (UTC) the [[United States Geological Survey]] detected a magnitude 4.3 [[Seismology|seismic event]] {{convert|70|km|mi|abbr=on}} north of Kimchaek, North Korea indicating a nuclear test.<ref>{{en icon}} {{cite report|url=http://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eqinthenews/2006/ustqab/|title=Magnitude 4.3—North Korea 2006 October 09 01:35:28 UTC|publisher=[[United States Geological Survey]] (USGS)|date=9 October 2006|accessdate=2010-12-02}}</ref> The North Korean government announced shortly afterward that they had completed [[2006 North Korean nuclear test|a successful underground test]] of a nuclear fission device.

In 2007, reports from Washington suggested that the 2002 [[CIA]] reports stating that North Korea was developing an enriched uranium weapons program, which led to North Korea leaving the NPT, had overstated or misread the intelligence.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N09302593.htm|title=N.Korean uranium enrichment program fades as issue|author=Carol Giacomo|publisher=Reuters|date=10 February 2007|accessdate=11 February 2007}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/washington/01korea.html|title=U.S. Had Doubts on North Korean Uranium Drive|publisher=New York Times|date=1 March 2007|accessdate=1 March 2007 | first1=David E. | last1=Sanger | first2=William J. | last2=Broad}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/28/AR2007022801977.html|title=New Doubts on Nuclear Efforts by North Korea|publisher=Washington Post|date=1 March 2007|accessdate=1 March 2007 | first=Glenn | last=Kessler}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/01/AR2007030101507.html|title=Another Intelligence Twist|publisher=Washington Post|date=2 March 2007|accessdate=10 March 2007}}</ref> On the other hand, even apart from these press allegations—which some critics {{by whom|date=April 2015}} worry could have been planted in order to justify the United States giving up trying to verify the dismantlement of Pyongyang's uranium program in the face of North Korean intransigence—there remains some information in the public record indicating the existence of a uranium effort. Quite apart from the fact that North Korean First Vice Minister Kang Sok Ju at one point admitted the existence of a uranium enrichment program, Pakistan's then-President Musharraf revealed that the [[A.Q. Khan]] proliferation network had provided North Korea with a number of gas centrifuges designed for uranium enrichment. Additionally, press reports have cited U.S. officials to the effect that evidence obtained in dismantling Libya's WMD programs points toward North Korea as the source for Libya's [[uranium hexafluoride]] (UF<sub>6</sub>) – which, if true, would mean that North Korea has a uranium conversion facility for producing feedstock for centrifuge enrichment.<ref>See generally U.S. Department of State, "Adherence to and Compliance With Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Disarmament Agreements and Commitments", August 2005, pp. 87–92, www.state.gov/documents/organization/52113.pdf; Anthony Faiola, "N. Korea Declares Itself a Nuclear Power," The Washington Post, 10 February 2005, www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12836-2005Feb10.html; "Khan 'Gave N. Korea Centrifuges'", BBC News, 24 August 2005, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4180286.stm; "Pakistan and North Korea: Dangerous Counter-Trades", IISS Strategic Comments, Vol. 8, No. 9 (November 2002).</ref>

===Iran===
{{Main article|Iran and weapons of mass destruction|Nuclear program of Iran}}
{{See also|Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action}}
{{Update|section|date=April 2015}}
{{Nuclear program of Iran}}
Iran is a party to the NPT but was found in non-compliance with its NPT safeguards agreement and the status of its nuclear program remains in dispute. In November 2003 [[International Atomic Energy Agency|IAEA]] Director General [[Mohamed ElBaradei]] reported that Iran had repeatedly and over an extended period failed to meet its safeguards obligations, including by failing to declare its uranium enrichment program.<ref name="IAEA-GOV/2003/75" /> After about two years of EU3-led diplomatic efforts and Iran temporarily suspending its enrichment program,<ref>{{cite web|author=AFP |url=http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1595892,00.html |title=EU and Iran Avert Nuclear Deadlock |publisher=Dw-world.de |date= |accessdate=25 November 2010}}</ref> the IAEA Board of Governors, acting under Article XII.C of the IAEA Statute, found in a rare non-consensus decision with 12 abstentions that these failures constituted non-compliance with the IAEA safeguards agreement.<ref name="IAEA-GOV/2005/77" /> This was reported to the [[United Nations Security Council|UN Security Council]] in 2006,<ref>[http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2006/gov2006-14.pdf Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Islamic Republic of Iran], Resolution adopted on 4 February 2006, {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111203080059/http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2006/gov2006-14.pdf |date=3 December 2011 }}</ref> after which the Security Council passed a resolution demanding that Iran suspend its enrichment.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/1737(2006)|title=United Nations Official Document|publisher=}}</ref>
Instead, Iran resumed its enrichment program.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4709490.stm |title='&#39;BBC'&#39;: Iran 'resumes' nuclear enrichment |publisher=BBC News |date=13 February 2006 |accessdate=25 November 2010}}</ref>

The IAEA has been able to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material in Iran, and is continuing its work on verifying the absence of undeclared activities.<ref name=IAEA_111307>{{cite web|url=http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2007/gov2007-58.pdf |title=Microsoft Word - gov2007-58.doc |format=PDF |date= |accessdate=25 November 2010 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20101202053430/http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2007/gov2007-58.pdf |archivedate=2 December 2010 }}</ref> In February 2008, the IAEA also reported that it was working to address "alleged studies" of weaponization, based on documents provided by certain Member States, which those states claimed originated from Iran. Iran rejected the allegations as "baseless" and the documents as "fabrications."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2008/gov2008-4.pdf |title=Microsoft Word - gov2008-4.doc |format=PDF |date= |accessdate=25 November 2010 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20101202051613/http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2008/gov2008-4.pdf |archivedate=2 December 2010 }}</ref> In June 2009, the IAEA reported that Iran had not "cooperated with the Agency in connection with the remaining issues ... which need to be clarified to exclude the possibility of military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program."<ref>[http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2009/gov2009-35.pdf GOV/2009/35], Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008) and 1835 (2008) in the Islamic Republic of Iran, 5 June 2009. {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091013195900/http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2009/gov2009-35.pdf |date=13 October 2009 }}</ref>

The United States concluded that Iran violated its Article III NPT safeguards obligations, and further argued based on circumstantial evidence that Iran's enrichment program was for weapons purposes and therefore violated Iran's Article II nonproliferation obligations.<ref>[http://www.state.gov/t/vci/rls/rpt/51977.htm Adherence to and Compliance With Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Disarmament Agreements and Commitments], [[Bureau of Verification and Compliance]], [[U.S. Department of State]], 30 August 2005 {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070314113614/http://www.state.gov/t/vci/rls/rpt/51977.htm |date=14 March 2007 }}</ref> The November 2007 US [[National Intelligence Estimate]] (NIE) later concluded that Iran had halted an active nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003 and that it had remained halted as of mid-2007. The NIE's "Key Judgments," however, also made clear that what Iran had actually stopped in 2003 was only "nuclear weapon design and weaponization work and covert uranium conversion-related and uranium enrichment-related work"-namely, those aspects of Iran's nuclear weapons effort that had not by that point already been leaked to the press and become the subject of IAEA investigations.<ref name=DNIIran>{{cite web|url=http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf |title=Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities (National Intelligence Estimate) |format=PDF |date= |accessdate=25 November 2010 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20101122022043/http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf |archivedate=22 November 2010 }}</ref>

Since Iran's uranium enrichment program at Natanz—and its continuing work on a heavy water reactor at Arak that would be ideal for plutonium production—began secretly years before in conjunction with the very weaponization work the NIE discussed and for the purpose of developing nuclear weapons, many observers find Iran's continued development of fissile material production capabilities distinctly worrying. Particularly because fissile material availability has long been understood to be the principal obstacle to nuclear weapons development and the primary "pacing element" for a weapons program, the fact that Iran has reportedly suspended weaponization work may not mean very much.<ref>See, e.g., U.S. Special Representative for Nuclear Nonproliferation Christopher A. Ford, "The 2020 NPT Review Cycle So Far: A View from the United States of America," remarks at Wilton Park, UK (20 December 2007), http://www.state.gov/t/isn/rls/rm/98382.htm ("Given that possession of the necessary quantity of fissile material is the most difficult challenge in developing a nuclear weapon, the recently-released U.S. National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) hardly alleviates our concerns about Iran's nuclear work.").</ref>  As U.S. Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell has put it, the aspects of its work that Iran allegedly suspended were thus "probably the least significant part of the program."<ref>{{cite news | author=Mark Mazzetti |authorlink=Mark Mazzetti |coauthors= |title=Intelligence Chief Cites Qaeda Threat to U.S. |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/06/washington/06intel.html |work=New York Times |publisher= |date=6 February 2008 |accessdate=}}</ref>

Iran states it has a legal right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes under the NPT, and further says that it "has constantly complied with its obligations under the NPT and the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency".<ref name=InfCirc724>{{cite web|url=http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/2008/infcirc724.pdf |title=INFCIRC/724 – Communication dated 26 March 2008 received from the Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the Agency |format=PDF |date= |accessdate=25 November 2010 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20100911030304/http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/2008/infcirc724.pdf |archivedate=11 September 2010 }}</ref> Iran also states that its enrichment program is part of its civilian nuclear energy program, which is allowed under Article IV of the NPT. The Non-Aligned Movement has welcomed the continuing cooperation of Iran with the IAEA and reaffirmed Iran's right to the peaceful uses of nuclear technology.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/2008/infcirc733.pdf |title=XV Ministerial Conference of the Non-Aligned Movement (July 2008): Statement on the Islamic Republic of Iran's Nuclear Issue |format=PDF |date= |accessdate=25 November 2010 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20100911030318/http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/2008/infcirc733.pdf |archivedate=11 September 2010 }}</ref> UN Secretary General [[Ban Ki-moon]] has welcomed the continued dialogue between Iran and the IAEA, and has called for a peaceful resolution to the issue.<ref>[http://www.oic-oci.org/oicnew/is11/English/un-sg-sp.pdf OIC (March 2008): UN Secretary-General's address to the 11th Summit of the Organization of the Islamic Conference]  {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081218010912/http://www.oic-oci.org/oicnew/is11/English/un-sg-sp.pdf |date=18 December 2008 }}</ref>

In April 2010, during the signing of the U.S.-Russia [[New START]] Treaty, President Obama said that the United States, Russia, and other nations are demanding that Iran face consequences for failing to fulfill their obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and that "we will not tolerate actions that flout the NPT, risk an arms race in a vital region, and threaten the credibility of the international community and our collective security."<ref name="DipNote START">{{cite web | url=http://blogs.state.gov/index.php/site/entry/new_start_treaty_and_protocol | title=New START Treaty and Protocol | publisher=DipNote | date=8 April 2010 | accessdate=2 October 2012}}</ref>

===South Africa===
{{See also|South Africa and weapons of mass destruction}}
South Africa is the only country that developed nuclear weapons by itself and later dismantled them – unlike the former [[Soviet Union|Soviet]] states Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan, which inherited nuclear weapons from the former [[USSR]] and also acceded to the NPT as non-nuclear weapon states.

During the days of [[apartheid]], the South African government developed a deep fear of both a black uprising and the threat of communism. This led to the development of a secret nuclear weapons program as an ultimate deterrent. South Africa has a large supply of uranium, which is mined in the country's gold mines. The government built a nuclear research facility at [[Pelindaba]] near Pretoria where uranium was enriched to fuel grade for the [[Koeberg Nuclear Power Station]] as well as weapon grade for bomb production.

In 1991, after international pressure and when a change of government was imminent, South African Ambassador to the United States [[Harry Schwarz]] signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In 1993, the then president [[Frederik Willem de Klerk]] openly admitted that the country had developed a limited nuclear weapon capability. These weapons were subsequently dismantled before South Africa acceded to the NPT and opened itself up to IAEA inspection. In 1994, the IAEA completed its work and declared that the country had fully dismantled its nuclear weapons program.

===Libya===
{{See also|Libya and weapons of mass destruction}}
Libya had signed and ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and was subject to IAEA nuclear safeguards inspections, but undertook a secret nuclear weapons development program in violation of its NPT obligations, using material and technology provided by the [[A.Q. Khan]] proliferation network<ref>[http://isis-online.org/uploads/isis-reports/documents/IAEA_Libya_Report_12September2008.pdf Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement in the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya], International Atomic Energy Agency, GOV/2008/39, 12 September 2008.</ref>—including actual nuclear weapons designs allegedly originating in China. Libya began secret negotiations with the United States and the United Kingdom in March 2003 over potentially eliminating its [[Weapon of mass destruction|WMD programs]]. In October 2003, Libya was embarrassed by the interdiction of a shipment of Pakistani-designed centrifuge parts sent from Malaysia, also as part of A. Q. Khan's proliferation ring.<ref>[http://www.isis-online.org/publications/southasia/nuclear_black_market.html Uncovering the Nuclear Black Market: Working Toward Closing Gaps in the International Nonproliferation Regime], by David Albright and Corey Hinderstein, Institute for Science and International Security, 4 June 2004.</ref>

In December 2003, Libya announced that it had agreed to eliminate all its WMD programs, and permitted U.S. and British teams (as well as IAEA inspectors) into the country to assist this process and verify its completion. The nuclear weapons designs, gas centrifuges for uranium enrichment, and other equipment—including prototypes for improved [[Scud|SCUD ballistic missiles]]—were removed from Libya by the United States. (Libyan chemical weapons stocks and chemical bombs were also destroyed on site with international verification, with Libya joining the Chemical Weapons Convention.) Libya's non-compliance with its IAEA safeguards was reported to the U.N. Security Council, but with no action taken, as Libya's return to compliance with safeguards and Article II of the NPT was welcomed.<ref>See generally Assistant Secretary of State Paula DeSutter, "Libya Renounces Weapons of Mass Destruction, http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/0305/ijpe/desutter.htm; DeSutter, "Completion of Verification Work in Libya," testimony before the Subcommittee on International Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Human Rights (22 September 2004), http://www.state.gov/t/vci/rls/rm/2004/37220.htm; DeSutter, "U.S. Government's Assistance to Libya in the Elimination of its Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)," testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (26 February 2004), http://www.state.gov/t/vci/rls/rm/2004/29945.htm.</ref>

In 2011 the Libyan government was overthrown in the [[Libyan Civil War]] with the assistance of a [[2011 military intervention in Libya|military intervention]] by NATO forces acting under the auspices of [[United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/world/odyssey-dawn-phase-one-of-libya-military-intervention-53247.html |accessdate=21 November 2015 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20160201201746/http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/world/odyssey-dawn-phase-one-of-libya-military-intervention-53247.html |archivedate=1 February 2016 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12856665|title=Libya: Nato to take command of no-fly zone|work=BBC News|accessdate=2016-02-20}}</ref>  It was speculated in the media (especially in the [[Middle East]]ern media) that NATO's intervention in Libya shortly after the nation agreed to nuclear and chemical weapons disarmament would make other countries such as North Korea more reluctant to give up nuclear programs due to the risk of being weakened as a result.<ref>Braut-Hegghammer, Malfrid.  "[https://www.mcu.usmc.mil/MES%20Monographs/MESM4_April2013_lo.pdf Relinquished Nuclear Powers: A Case Study of Libya]" in ''To Join or Not to Join the Nuclear Club: How Nations Think about Nuclear Weapons: Two Middle East Case Studies - Libya and Pakistan'' (Middle East Studies, April 2013).</ref>

===Syria===
{{See also|Syria and weapons of mass destruction}}
Syria is a signatory to the NPT and has a limited civil nuclear program. Before the advent of the [[Syrian Civil War]] it was known to operate only one small Chinese-built research reactor, SRR-1. Despite being a proponent of a Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone in the Middle East the country was accused of pursuing a military nuclear program with a reported nuclear facility in a 	desert Syrian region of Deir ez-Zor. The reactor's components had likely been designed and manufactured in North Korea, with the reactor's striking similarity in shape and size to the North Korean Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center. That information alarmed Israeli military and intelligence to such a degree that the idea of a targeted airstrike was conceived. It resulted in [[Operation Orchard]], that took place on September 6, 2007  and saw as many as eight Israeli aircraft taking part. Israeli government is said to have bounced the idea of the operation off the US Bush administration, although the latter disagreed to participate. The nuclear reactor was destroyed in the attack, which also killed about ten North Korean workers. The attack didn't cause an international outcry or any serious Syrian retaliatory moves as both parties tried to keep it secret: Israel didn't want publicity as regards its breach of international law while Syria wasn't willing to acknowledge its clandestine nuclear program.{{citation needed|date=October 2016}}

==Leaving the treaty==
Article X allows a state to leave the treaty if "extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country", giving three months' (ninety days') notice. The state is required to give reasons for leaving the NPT in this notice.

[[NATO]] states argue that when there is a state of "general war" the treaty no longer applies, effectively allowing the states involved to leave the treaty with no notice. This is a necessary argument to support the NATO [[nuclear weapons sharing]] policy, but a troubling one for the logic of the treaty. NATO's argument is based on the phrase "the consequent need to make every effort to avert the danger of such a war" in the treaty preamble, inserted at the behest of U.S. diplomats, arguing that the treaty would at that point have failed to fulfill its function of prohibiting a general war and thus no longer be binding.<ref name="is_it_legal"/> Many states do not accept this argument. See [[Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty#United States–NATO nuclear weapons sharing|United States–NATO nuclear weapons sharing]] above.

North Korea has also caused an uproar by its use of this provision of the treaty. Article X.1 only requires a state to give three months' notice in total, and does not provide for other states to question a state's interpretation of "supreme interests of its country". In 1993, North Korea gave notice to withdraw from the NPT. However, after 89 days, North Korea reached agreement with the United States to freeze its nuclear program under the [[Agreed Framework]] and "suspended" its withdrawal notice. In October 2002, the United States accused North Korea of violating the Agreed Framework by pursuing a secret uranium enrichment program, and suspended shipments of heavy fuel oil under that agreement. In response, North Korea expelled IAEA inspectors, disabled IAEA equipment, and, on 10 January 2003, announced that it was ending the suspension of its previous NPT withdrawal notification. North Korea said that only one more day's notice was sufficient for withdrawal from the NPT, as it had given 89 days before.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/NK/Nuclear/index.html |title=North Korea Profile – Nuclear Overview |publisher=Nti.org |date= |accessdate=25 November 2010}}</ref>

The IAEA Board of Governors rejected this interpretation.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/MediaAdvisory/2003/med-advise_048.shtml |title=Media Advisory 2003/48 – IAEA Board of Governors Adopts Resolution on Safeguards in North Korea – 12 February |publisher=Iaea.org |date= |accessdate=25 November 2010}}</ref> Most countries held that a new three-months withdrawal notice was required, and some questioned whether North Korea's notification met the "extraordinary events" and "supreme interests" requirements of the treaty. The Joint Statement of 19 September 2005 at the end of the Fourth Round of the [[Six-Party Talks]] called for North Korea to "return" to the NPT, implicitly acknowledging that it had withdrawn.

==Recent and coming events==
{{Update|section|date=April 2015}}
The main outcome of the 2000 Conference was the adoption by consensus of a comprehensive Final Document,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/2000-NPT/2000NPT.shtml|title=2000 NPT Review Conference|work=un.org|accessdate=2016-02-20}}</ref> which included among other things "practical steps for the systematic and progressive efforts" to implement the disarmament provisions of the NPT, commonly referred to as the [[Thirteen Steps]].

On 18 July 2005, US President George W. Bush met Indian Prime Minister [[Manmohan Singh]] and declared that he would work to change US law and international rules to permit trade in US civilian nuclear technology with India.<ref>The Associated Press, 2005, [http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/18/us.india.ap/ Bush opens energy door to India], furnished by CNN (cnn.com), 18 July 2005 {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060219104025/http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/18/us.india.ap/ |date=19 February 2006 }}</ref> Some, such as British columnist [[George Monbiot]], argue that the U.S.-India nuclear deal, in combination with US attempts to deny Iran (an NPT signatory) civilian nuclear fuel-making technology, may destroy the NPT regime,<ref>George Monbiot, The Guardian (guardian.co.uk), 2 August 2005, [https://www.theguardian.com/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1540683,00.html The treaty wreckers] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050803232044/http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673,1540683,00.html |date=3 August 2005 }}</ref> while others{{Who|date=December 2008}} contend that such a move will likely bring India, an NPT non-signatory, under closer international scrutiny.

In the first half of 2010, it was strongly believed that China had signed a civilian nuclear deal with Pakistan claiming that the deal was "peaceful".<ref name=BBCUK/>

[[Arms control treaty|Arms control]] advocates criticised the reported [[Nuclear power in Pakistan#People's Republic of China|China-Pakistan deal]] as they did in case of [[U.S.–India Civil Nuclear Agreement|U.S.-India deal]] claiming that both the deals violate the NPT by facilitating nuclear programmes in states which are not parties to the NPT.<ref name=globalissues/> Some reports asserted that the deal was a strategic move by China to balance US influence in [[South-Asia]].<ref name=nti.org/>

According to a report published by [[United States Department of Defense|U.S. Department of Defense]] in 2001, China had provided Pakistan with [[nuclear material]]s and has given critical technological assistance in the construction of Pakistan's nuclear weapons development facilities, in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which China even then was a signatory.<ref name=TWR>{{cite news|title=US Report: China gifted nuclear bomb and Pakistan stole the technology|url=http://www.theworldreporter.com/2009/11/us-report-china-gifted-nuclear-bomb-and.html|accessdate=12 March 2012|newspaper=The world reporter|date=18 November 2009}}</ref><ref name=CSIS>{{cite news|title=Nuclear Weapons Proliferation report |url=http://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca/pblctns/prspctvs/200110-eng.asp |accessdate=12 March 2012 |newspaper=Canadian Security Intelligence Service |date=October 2001 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20120312190837/http://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca/pblctns/prspctvs/200110-eng.asp |archivedate=12 March 2012 }}</ref>

At the [https://web.archive.org/web/20090322103152/http://www.un.org/events/npt2005/ Seventh Review Conference in May 2005], there were stark differences between the United States, which wanted the conference to focus on non-proliferation, especially on its allegations against Iran, and most other countries, who emphasized the lack of serious [[nuclear disarmament]] by the nuclear powers. The [[Non-Aligned Movement|non-aligned countries]] reiterated their position emphasizing the need for nuclear disarmament.<ref>Syed Hamid Albar, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Malaysia, United Nations (un.org), New York, 2 May 2005, [http://www.un.org/events/npt2005/statements/npt02malaysia.pdf The General Debate of the 2005 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050508053154/http://www.un.org/events/npt2005/statements/npt02malaysia.pdf |date=8 May 2005 }}</ref>

The [[NPT Review Conference|2010 Review Conference]] was held in May 2010 in New York City, and adopted a final document that included a summary by the Review Conference President, Ambassador Libran Capactulan of the Philippines, and an [[Action Plan]] that was adopted by consensus.<ref>[http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/npt/NIR2010/finaldocsummary.html Summary of the 2010 NPT final outcome document], Beatrice Fihn, Reaching Critical Will, 1 June 2010. {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110716182116/http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/npt/NIR2010/finaldocsummary.html |date=16 July 2011 }}</ref><ref>[http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/npt/revcon2010/FinalDocument.pdf Final Document], 2010 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, NPT/CONF.2010/50, adopted 28 May 2010. {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110716182134/http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/npt/revcon2010/FinalDocument.pdf |date=16 July 2011 }}</ref> The 2010 conference was generally considered a success because it reached consensus where the previous Review Conference in 2005 ended in disarray, a fact that many attributed to the [[President of the United States|U.S. President]] [[Barack Obama]]'s commitment to nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament. Some have warned that this success raised unrealistically high expectations that could lead to failure at the next [[Review Conference in 2015]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.boell.eu/downloads/NPT_eventreport.pdf |title=Heinrich Böll Stiftung European Union |work=boell.eu |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110823110253/http://www.boell.eu/downloads/NPT_eventreport.pdf |archivedate=23 August 2011 }}</ref>

<!--The 2007 and 2008 meetings of the NPT Preparatory Committee &ndash; devoted to preparing the way for the 2010 Review Conference &ndash; saw a considerable improvement in the tone of discussions. The 2007 meeting, in particular, was notable for the degree to which most other governments stood united against Iranian efforts to use procedural maneuvers related to the agenda to delay substantive discussions of nonproliferation issues.<ref>See, e.g., U.S. Special Representative for Nuclear Nonproliferation Christopher Ford, "Lessons Learned from the 2007 Preparatory Committee Meeting," remarks at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (25 June 2007), http://www.state.gov/t/isn/rls/rm/87983.htm.</ref>  Disarmament criticism of the nuclear weapons states was also more muted, perhaps as a result of high-profile engagement by some weapons-state representatives to highlight the dramatic and continuing reductions in nuclear arsenals that have been underway in the United States and Russia since the end of the Cold War.<ref>Disarmament, the United States, and the NPT," U.S. government paper delivered at the Conference on "Preparing for 2010: Getting the Process Right," Annecy, France (17 March 2007), available at http://www.state.gov/t/isn/rls/other/81946.htm (detailing U.S. reductions); "Nuclear Disarmament Progress and Challenges in the Post-Cold War World," U.S. government statement to the Second Session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2010 Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, Palais des Nations, Geneva (30 April 2008), available at http://geneva.usmission.gov/CD/updates/0430USstatementNPT.html (updating account of U.S. reductions).</ref>-->
The "[[Global Summit on Nuclear Security, 2010|Global Summit on Nuclear Security]]" took place 12–13 April 2010. The summit was proposed by [[Barack Obama speech in Prague, 2009|President Obama in Prague]] and was intended to strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in conjunction with the [[Proliferation Security Initiative]] and the [[Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism]].<ref>[http://www.america.gov/st/peacesec-english/2009/July/20090709132238dmslahrellek0.58482.html Obama Calls for Global Nuclear Summit in March 2010] from [http://www.america.gov/ America.gov], retrieved on 8 January 2010. {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100131210539/http://www.america.gov/st/peacesec-english/2009/July/20090709132238dmslahrellek0.58482.html |date=31 January 2010 }}</ref> Forty seven states and three international organizations took part in the summit,<ref>{{cite web|title=Key Facts about the Nuclear Security Summit|url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/key-facts-about-nuclear-security-summit|work=Office of the Press Secretary|publisher=The White House|accessdate=23 August 2012|date=13 April 2010}}</ref> which issued a communiqué<ref>{{cite web|title=Communiqué of the Washington Nuclear Security Summit|url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/communiqu-washington-nuclear-security-summit|work=Office of the Press Secretary|publisher=The White House|accessdate=23 August 2012|date=13 April 2010}}</ref> and a work plan.<ref>{{cite web|title=Work Plan of the Washington Nuclear Security Summit|url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/work-plan-washington-nuclear-security-summit|work=Office of the Press Secretary|publisher=The White House|accessdate=23 August 2012|date=13 April 2012}}</ref> For further information see [[2010 Nuclear Security Summit]].

In a major policy speech at the [[Brandenburg Gate]] in [[Berlin]] on 19 June 2013, United States President [[Barack Obama]] outlined plans to further reduce the number of warheads in the [[United States and weapons of mass destruction|U.S. nuclear arsenal]].<ref name="FP Situation Report">{{cite news|last=Lubold|first=Gordon|title=Foreign Policy Situation Report: Obama to outline big nuke cuts today; DOD civilian owes $500k – to DOD; Petraeus to Team Rubicon; Hastings, dead; Say goodbye, Rambo; Tara Sonenshine on "bottom line diplomacy;" and a bit more.|url=https://foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/06/19/obama_to_outline_big_nuke_cuts_today_dod_civilian_owes_500k_to_dod_petraeus_to_t|accessdate=19 June 2013|newspaper=Foreign Policy|date=19 June 2013}}</ref> According to ''[[Foreign Policy]]'', Obama proposed a "one-third reduction in strategic nuclear warheads - on top of the cuts already required by the [[New START]] treaty - bringing the number of deployed warheads to about 1,000."<ref name="FP Situation Report" /> Obama is seeking to "negotiate these reductions with [[Russia]] to continue to move beyond [[Cold War]] nuclear postures," according to briefing documents provided to ''[[Foreign Policy]]''.<ref name="FP Situation Report" />  In the same speech, Obama emphasized his administration's efforts to isolate any nuclear weapons capabilities emanating from [[Iran]] and [[North Korea]]. He also called for a renewed bipartisan effort in the [[United States Congress]] to ratify the [[Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty]] and called on countries to negotiate a new treaty to end the production of [[fissile|fissile material]] for [[nuclear weapon]]s.

On 24 April 2014, it was announced that the nation of the Marshall Islands has brought suit in The Hague against the United States, the former Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel seeking to have the disarmament provisions of the NNPT enforced.<ref>{{cite news| title=Pacific Island Nation Sues U.S., Others For Violating Nuclear Treaty| publisher=National Public Radio| first=Scott| last=Newman| date=24 April 2014| url=http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/04/24/306540808/pacific-islands-sue-u-s-others-for-violating-nuclear-treat| accessdate=24 April 2014}}</ref>

[[The 2015 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons]] (NPT) was held at the United Nations in New York from 27 April to 22 May 2015 and presided over by Ambassador [[Taous Feroukhi]] of Algeria. The Treaty, particularly article VIII, paragraph 3, envisages a review of the operation of the Treaty every five years, a provision which was reaffirmed by the States parties at the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference and the 2000 NPT Review Conference. At the 2015 NPT Review Conference, States parties examined the implementation of the Treaty's provisions since 2010. Despite intensive consultations, the Conference was not able to reach agreement on the substantive part of the draft Final Document.

==Criticism and responses==
Over the years the NPT has come to be seen by many Third World states as "a conspiracy of the nuclear 'haves' to keep the nuclear 'have-nots' in their place".<ref>{{cite web|last= |first= |url= http://insightsonindia.com/2014/02/25/insights-secure-2014-questions-on-current-events-115/|title=Insights Secure-2014: Questions On Current Events |publisher=Insights on India|date= |accessdate=24 October 2014}}</ref> This argument has roots in Article VI of the treaty which "obligates the nuclear weapons states to liquidate their nuclear stockpiles and pursue complete disarmament. The non-nuclear states see no signs of this happening".<ref name=graham2004/><ref name=tcr2009/> Some argue that the NWS have not fully complied with their disarmament obligations under Article VI of the NPT.<ref>{{cite web|last=Rendall |first=Steve |url=http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2619 |title=Ignoring the U.S.'s "Bad Atoms" |publisher=Fair.org |date= |accessdate=25 November 2010 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20101124065003/http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2619 |archivedate=24 November 2010 }}</ref> Some countries such as India have criticized the NPT, because it "discriminated against states not possessing nuclear weapons on January 1, 1967," while Iran and numerous Arab states have criticized Israel for not signing the NPT.<ref>{{cite web|last= Fidler |first=David P. |url= http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/india-wants-join-non-proliferation-treaty |title=India Wants to Join the Non-Proliferation Treaty as a Weapon State |publisher= Yale Global |date= |accessdate=24 October 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|author= Reuters|url= http://nation.com.pk/national/14-Apr-2014/pakistan-and-india-refused-to-sign-the-nuclear-non-proliferation-treaty |title=Pakistan and India refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty |publisher= The Nation |date= |accessdate=24 October 2014}}</ref> There has been disappointment with the limited progress on nuclear disarmament, where the five authorized nuclear weapons states still have 22,000 warheads among them and have shown a reluctance to disarm further.<ref name="bks2011"/>

As noted [[#Second pillar: disarmament|above]], the International Court of Justice, in its [[International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons|advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons]], stated that "there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.<ref name="ICJ"/> Such an obligation requires that states actively pursue measures to reduce the numbers of nuclear weapons and the importance of their role in military force structures.{{according to whom|date=November 2011}}  Some critics of the nuclear-weapons states contend that they have failed to comply with Article VI by failing to make disarmament the driving force in national planning and policy with respect to nuclear weapons, even while they ask other states to plan for their security without nuclear weapons.<ref>|wmdreport.org/ndcs/online/NuclearDisorderPart1Section2.pdf |</ref>

The United States responds to criticism of its disarmament record by pointing out that since the end of the Cold War it has eliminated over 13,000 nuclear weapons and eliminated over 80% of its deployed strategic warheads and 90% of non-strategic warheads deployed to NATO, in the process eliminating whole categories of warheads and delivery systems and reducing its reliance on nuclear weapons.{{Citation needed|date=May 2010}}  U.S. officials have also pointed out the ongoing U.S. work to dismantle nuclear warheads. When current accelerated dismantlement efforts ordered by President George W. Bush have been completed, the U.S. arsenal will be less than a quarter of its size at the end of the Cold War, and smaller than it has been at any point since the Eisenhower administration, well before the drafting of the NPT.<ref>[http://www.defense.gov/news/d20100503stockpile.pdf Fact Sheet: Increasing Transparency in the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Stockpile], 3 May 2010. {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100506091705/http://www.defense.gov/news/d20100503stockpile.pdf |date=6 May 2010 }}</ref>

The United States has also purchased many thousands of weapons' worth of uranium formerly in Soviet nuclear weapons for conversion into reactor fuel.<ref>See. e.g., "Disarmament, the United States, and the NPT," http://www.state.gov/t/isn/rls/other/81946.htm; U.S. Special Representative for Nuclear Nonproliferation Christopher Ford, "Procedure and Substance in the NPT Review Cycle: The Example of Nuclear Disarmament," remarks to the Conference on "Preparing for 2010: Getting the Process Right," Annecy, France (17 March 2007), http://www.state.gov/t/isn/rls/rm/81940.htm; "The United States and Article VI: A Record of Accomplishment," http://geneva.usmission.gov/CD/updates/05-06-08%20Article%20VI%20Briefing.pdf.</ref> As a consequence of this latter effort, it has been estimated that the equivalent of one lightbulb in every ten in the United States is powered by nuclear fuel removed from warheads previously targeted at the United States and its allies during the Cold War.<ref>Remarks by U.S. National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley at the Center for International Security and Cooperation, Stanford University (8 February 2008), http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/02/20080211-6.html.</ref>

The U.S. Special Representative for Nuclear Nonproliferation agreed that nonproliferation and disarmament are linked, noting that they can be mutually reinforcing but also that growing proliferation risks create an environment that makes disarmament more difficult.<ref>[http://www.state.gov/t/isn/rls/other/81946.htm Disarmament, the United States, and the NPT]  {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090530145038/http://www.state.gov/t/isn/rls/other/81946.htm |date=30 May 2009 }}</ref> The United Kingdom,<ref>[http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/fco-in-action/counter-terrorism/weapons/nuclear-weapons/ FCO fact sheet on nuclear weapons]  {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090612193020/http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/fco-in-action/counter-terrorism/weapons/nuclear-weapons/ |date=12 June 2009 }}</ref> France<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2005_01-02/Levitte |title=The 2005 NPT Review Conference: A French Perspective |publisher=Armscontrol.org |date= |accessdate=25 November 2010}}</ref> and Russia<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.un.org/events/npt2005/statements/npt03russian.pdf |title=Statement by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Kislyak at the 2005 NPT Review Conference |format=PDF |date= |accessdate=25 November 2010 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20090326212755/http://www.un.org/events/npt2005/statements/npt03russian.pdf |archivedate=26 March 2009 }}</ref> likewise defend their nuclear disarmament records, and the five NPT NWS issued a joint statement in 2008 reaffirming their Article VI disarmament commitments.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.un.org/NPT2010/SecondSession/delegates%20statements/P5%20Statement.pdf |title=Statement of the P5 to the 2008 NPT PrepCom |format=PDF |date= |accessdate=25 November 2010 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20110604142332/http://www.un.org/NPT2010/SecondSession/delegates%20statements/P5%20Statement.pdf |archivedate=4 June 2011 }}</ref>

According to Thomas Reed and Danny Stillman, the "NPT has one giant loophole": Article IV gives each non-nuclear weapon state the 'inalienable right' to pursue nuclear energy for the generation of power.<ref name=tcr2009>Thomas C. Reed and Danny B. Stillman (2009). ''The Nuclear Express: A Political History of the Bomb and its Proliferation'', Zenith Press, p. 144.</ref> A "number of high-ranking officials, even within the United Nations, have argued that they can do little to stop states using [[nuclear reactor]]s to produce nuclear weapons".<ref name=bks2011/> A 2009 United Nations report said that:
<blockquote>
The revival of interest in nuclear power could result in the worldwide dissemination of uranium enrichment and spent fuel reprocessing technologies, which present obvious risks of proliferation as these technologies can produce fissile materials that are directly usable in nuclear weapons.<ref name=bks2011/>
</blockquote>

According to critics, those{{which||there aren't any!? India et al. aren't members of the NPT|date=September 2016}} states which possess nuclear weapons, but are not authorized to do so under the NPT, have not paid a significant price for their pursuit of weapons capabilities. Also, the NPT has been explicitly weakened by a number of bilateral deals made by NPT signatories, notably the United States.<ref name=bks2011/>

==See also==
* [[13 steps]] (an important section in the Final Document of the 2000 Review Conference of the Treaty)
* [[Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty]] (CTBT)
* [[Humanitarian Initiative]]
* [[Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism]] (GICNT)
* [[List of countries with nuclear weapons]]
* [[Missile Technology Control Regime]] (MTCR)
* [[New Agenda Coalition]] (NAC)
* [[Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Initiative]] (NPDI)
* [[Nuclear armament]]
* [[Nuclear warfare]]
* [[Nuclear-weapon-free zone]]
* [[Nuclear terrorism]]
* [[Proliferation Security Initiative]] (PSI)
* [[Renovation of the nuclear weapon arsenal of the United States]]
* [[Strategic Arms Limitation Talks]] (SALT)
* [[Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty]] (SORT)
* [[Weapon of mass destruction]] (WMD)
* [[Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean]] (Treaty of Tlatelolco)

==References==
{{Reflist|2}}

==External links==
{{Wikisource|Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty}}
{{Wikinews category|Nuclear proliferation}}
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20070807060917/http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/infcirc140.pdf Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty] (PDF) – [[IAEA]]
* [http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/NPT.shtml UN Office of Disarmament Affairs NPT section]
* [http://legal.un.org/avl/ha/tnpt/tnpt.html Procedural history, related documents and photos on the ''Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)''] in the Historic Archives of the [[United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law]]
* [https://a2000europe.wordpress.com/ Abolition 2000 Europe], [[The Rideau Institute]], Ottawa
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20071117173644/http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3149979950735473461&q=globalvision People vs. The Bomb: Showdown at the UN (Video)]
* [http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/library/treaties/non-proliferation-treaty/trty_npt_1970-03-05.htm NuclearFiles.org] Summary and text from the nuclear NPT
* [http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/npt Membership/Signatories]
* [http://www.npolicy.org/ The Nonproliferation Policy Education Center (NPEC)]- A not-for-profit organization based in Washington, D.C., and founded in 1994 to promote a better understanding of strategic weapons proliferation issues among policymakers, scholars and the media.
* [http://alsos.wlu.edu/adv_rst.aspx?keyword=NPT&results=10 Annotated Bibliography on the NPT] from the [[Alsos Digital Library for Nuclear Issues]]
* [http://newsblaze.com/story/20080630082120tsop.nb/topstory.html Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Turns 40 Today in 2008], NewsBlaze
* {{ill|George Perkovich|de}}, [https://web.archive.org/web/20111210090856/http://ifri.org/downloads/Perkovich_Reforming_Nuclear_Order.pdf "Principles for Reforming the Nuclear Order"], ''Proliferation Papers'', Paris, Ifri, Fall 2008.
* [http://www.state.gov/t/isn/wmd/nnp/ Compilation of speeches and papers relevant to NPT Review Cycle], [[U.S. Department of State]]
* [http://web.archive.org/web/20100119180036/http://dfa.gov.ph/main/index.php/newsroom/npt-information-a-updates The 2010 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference], [[Department of Foreign Affairs, Republic of the Philippines]]
* [http://alsos.wlu.edu/adv_rst.aspx?keyword=NPT&results=10 Annotated bibliography for the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty] from the Alsos Digital Library for Nuclear Issues
* [[The American Academy of Arts and Sciences]] [https://web.archive.org/web/20120414221108/http://www.amacad.org/publications/nonproliferation.aspx Nuclear Collisions: Discord, Reform & the Nuclear Nonproliferation Regime]
{{Cold War}}
{{Nuclear weapons limitation treaty}}

{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty}}
[[Category:Arms control treaties]]
[[Category:Non-proliferation treaties]]
[[Category:Nuclear proliferation]]
[[Category:Nuclear weapons policy]]
[[Category:Treaties of the United States]]
[[Category:Treaties of the Soviet Union]]
[[Category:Cold War treaties]]
[[Category:Treaties concluded in 1968]]
[[Category:Treaties entered into force in 1970]]
[[Category:Treaties of the Kingdom of Afghanistan]]
[[Category:Treaties of the People's Socialist Republic of Albania]]
[[Category:Treaties of Algeria]]
[[Category:Treaties of Andorra]]
[[Category:Treaties of Angola]]
[[Category:Treaties of Antigua and Barbuda]]
[[Category:Treaties of Argentina]]
[[Category:Treaties of Armenia]]
[[Category:Treaties of Australia]]
[[Category:Treaties of Austria]]
[[Category:Treaties of Azerbaijan]]
[[Category:Treaties of the Bahamas]]
[[Category:Treaties of Bahrain]]
[[Category:Treaties of Bangladesh]]
[[Category:Treaties of Barbados]]
[[Category:Treaties of Belarus]]
[[Category:Treaties of Belgium]]
[[Category:Treaties of Belize]]
[[Category:Treaties of the Republic of Dahomey]]
[[Category:Treaties of Bhutan]]
[[Category:Treaties of Bolivia]]
[[Category:Treaties of Bosnia and Herzegovina]]
[[Category:Treaties of Botswana]]
[[Category:Treaties of Brazil]]
[[Category:Treaties of Brunei]]
[[Category:Treaties of the People's Republic of Bulgaria]]
[[Category:Treaties of Burkina Faso]]
[[Category:Treaties of Burundi]]
[[Category:Treaties of the Khmer Republic]]
[[Category:Treaties of Cameroon]]
[[Category:Treaties of Canada]]
[[Category:Treaties of Cape Verde]]
[[Category:Treaties of the Central African Republic]]
[[Category:Treaties of Chad]]
[[Category:Treaties of Chile]]
[[Category:Treaties of the People's Republic of China]]
[[Category:Treaties of Colombia]]
[[Category:Treaties of the Comoros]]
[[Category:Treaties of the Republic of the Congo]]
[[Category:Treaties of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (1964–71)]]
[[Category:Treaties of Costa Rica]]
[[Category:Treaties of Ivory Coast]]
[[Category:Treaties of Croatia]]
[[Category:Treaties of Cuba]]
[[Category:Treaties of Cyprus]]
[[Category:Treaties of Czechoslovakia]]
[[Category:Treaties of the Czech Republic]]
[[Category:Treaties of Denmark]]
[[Category:Treaties of Djibouti]]
[[Category:Treaties of Dominica]]
[[Category:Treaties of the Dominican Republic]]
[[Category:Treaties of Ecuador]]
[[Category:Treaties of Egypt]]
[[Category:Treaties of El Salvador]]
[[Category:Treaties of Equatorial Guinea]]
[[Category:Treaties of Eritrea]]
[[Category:Treaties of Estonia]]
[[Category:Treaties of the Ethiopian Empire]]
[[Category:Treaties of Fiji]]
[[Category:Treaties of Finland]]
[[Category:Treaties of France]]
[[Category:Treaties of Gabon]]
[[Category:Treaties of the Gambia]]
[[Category:Treaties of Georgia (country)]]
[[Category:Treaties of West Germany]]
[[Category:Treaties of East Germany]]
[[Category:Treaties of Ghana]]
[[Category:Treaties of the Kingdom of Greece]]
[[Category:Treaties of Grenada]]
[[Category:Treaties of Guatemala]]
[[Category:Treaties of Guinea]]
[[Category:Treaties of Guinea-Bissau]]
[[Category:Treaties of Guyana]]
[[Category:Treaties of Haiti]]
[[Category:Treaties of the Holy See]]
[[Category:Treaties of Honduras]]
[[Category:Treaties of the Hungarian People's Republic]]
[[Category:Treaties of Iceland]]
[[Category:Treaties of Indonesia]]
[[Category:Treaties of the Pahlavi dynasty]]
[[Category:Treaties of Ba'athist Iraq]]
[[Category:Treaties of Ireland]]
[[Category:Treaties of Italy]]
[[Category:Treaties of Jamaica]]
[[Category:Treaties of Japan]]
[[Category:Treaties of Jordan]]
[[Category:Treaties of Kazakhstan]]
[[Category:Treaties of Kenya]]
[[Category:Treaties of Kiribati]]
[[Category:Treaties of Kuwait]]
[[Category:Treaties of Kyrgyzstan]]
[[Category:Treaties of the Kingdom of Laos]]
[[Category:Treaties of Latvia]]
[[Category:Treaties of Lebanon]]
[[Category:Treaties of Lesotho]]
[[Category:Treaties of Liberia]]
[[Category:Treaties of the Libyan Arab Republic]]
[[Category:Treaties of Liechtenstein]]
[[Category:Treaties of Lithuania]]
[[Category:Treaties of Luxembourg]]
[[Category:Treaties of the Republic of Macedonia]]
[[Category:Treaties of Madagascar]]
[[Category:Treaties of Malawi]]
[[Category:Treaties of Malaysia]]
[[Category:Treaties of the Maldives]]
[[Category:Treaties of Mali]]
[[Category:Treaties of Malta]]
[[Category:Treaties of the Marshall Islands]]
[[Category:Treaties of Mauritania]]
[[Category:Treaties of Mauritius]]
[[Category:Treaties of Mexico]]
[[Category:Treaties of the Federated States of Micronesia]]
[[Category:Treaties of Moldova]]
[[Category:Treaties of Monaco]]
[[Category:Treaties of the Mongolian People's Republic]]
[[Category:Treaties of Montenegro]]
[[Category:Treaties of Morocco]]
[[Category:Treaties of the People's Republic of Mozambique]]
[[Category:Treaties of Myanmar]]
[[Category:Treaties of Namibia]]
[[Category:Treaties of Nauru]]
[[Category:Treaties of Nepal]]
[[Category:Treaties of the Netherlands]]
[[Category:Treaties of New Zealand]]
[[Category:Treaties of Nicaragua]]
[[Category:Treaties of Niger]]
[[Category:Treaties of Nigeria]]
[[Category:Treaties of Norway]]
[[Category:Treaties of Oman]]
[[Category:Treaties of Palau]]
[[Category:Treaties of Panama]]
[[Category:Treaties of Papua New Guinea]]
[[Category:Treaties of Paraguay]]
[[Category:Treaties of Peru]]
[[Category:Treaties of the Philippines]]
[[Category:Treaties of the Polish People's Republic]]
[[Category:Treaties of Portugal]]
[[Category:Treaties of Qatar]]
[[Category:Treaties of South Korea]]
[[Category:Treaties of the Socialist Republic of Romania]]
[[Category:Treaties of Rwanda]]
[[Category:Treaties of Saint Kitts and Nevis]]
[[Category:Treaties of Saint Lucia]]
[[Category:Treaties of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines]]
[[Category:Treaties of Samoa]]
[[Category:Treaties of San Marino]]
[[Category:Treaties of São Tomé and Príncipe]]
[[Category:Treaties of Saudi Arabia]]
[[Category:Treaties of Senegal]]
[[Category:Treaties of Serbia]]
[[Category:Treaties of Serbia and Montenegro]]
[[Category:Treaties of Seychelles]]
[[Category:Treaties of Sierra Leone]]
[[Category:Treaties of Singapore]]
[[Category:Treaties of Slovakia]]
[[Category:Treaties of Slovenia]]
[[Category:Treaties of the Solomon Islands]]
[[Category:Treaties of the Somali Democratic Republic]]
[[Category:Treaties of South Africa]]
[[Category:Treaties of Spain]]
[[Category:Treaties of Sri Lanka]]
[[Category:Treaties of the Democratic Republic of the Sudan]]
[[Category:Treaties of Suriname]]
[[Category:Treaties of Swaziland]]
[[Category:Treaties of Sweden]]
[[Category:Treaties of Switzerland]]
[[Category:Treaties of Syria]]
[[Category:Treaties of Tajikistan]]
[[Category:Treaties of Tanzania]]
[[Category:Treaties of Thailand]]
[[Category:Treaties of East Timor]]
[[Category:Treaties of Togo]]
[[Category:Treaties of Tonga]]
[[Category:Treaties of Trinidad and Tobago]]
[[Category:Treaties of Tunisia]]
[[Category:Treaties of Turkey]]
[[Category:Treaties of Turkmenistan]]
[[Category:Treaties of Tuvalu]]
[[Category:Treaties of Uganda]]
[[Category:Treaties of Ukraine]]
[[Category:Treaties of the United Arab Emirates]]
[[Category:Treaties of the United Kingdom]]
[[Category:Treaties of Uruguay]]
[[Category:Treaties of Uzbekistan]]
[[Category:Treaties of Vanuatu]]
[[Category:Treaties of Venezuela]]
[[Category:Treaties of Vietnam]]
[[Category:Treaties of the Yemen Arab Republic]]
[[Category:Treaties of South Yemen]]
[[Category:Treaties of Zambia]]
[[Category:Treaties of Zimbabwe]]
[[Category:Treaties of the Republic of China (1949–71)]]
[[Category:Nuclear technology treaties]]
[[Category:Treaties extended to Aruba]]
[[Category:Treaties extended to the Netherlands Antilles]]
[[Category:Treaties extended to the Faroe Islands]]
[[Category:Treaties extended to Greenland]]
[[Category:Treaties extended to Anguilla]]
[[Category:Treaties extended to Bermuda]]
[[Category:Treaties extended to the British Virgin Islands]]
[[Category:Treaties extended to the Cayman Islands]]
[[Category:Treaties extended to the Falkland Islands]]
[[Category:Treaties extended to Gibraltar]]
[[Category:Treaties extended to Montserrat]]
[[Category:Treaties extended to the Pitcairn Islands]]
[[Category:Treaties extended to Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha]]
[[Category:Treaties extended to South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands]]
[[Category:Treaties extended to the Turks and Caicos Islands]]
[[Category:Treaties extended to British Hong Kong]]