Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback New Zealand Yearbook of International Law

Costi, Alberto --- "Nuclear Weapons, Non-proliferation and International Security" [2010] NZYbkIntLaw 16; (2010) 8 New Zealand Yearbook of International Law 252

Last Updated: 10 August 2015

NUCLEAR WEAPONS, NON-PROLIFERATION & INTERNATIONAL SECURITY

I. Introduction

In 2010, New Zealand was involved in several important matters regarding nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and international security. The 2010 Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT)1 Review Conference represented a significant milestone, with the adoption of an action plan to implement the obligations contained in the NPT. Another important achievement was the signature on 8 April 2010 in Prague of the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START)2 between the United States and Russia over the reduction of nuclear weapons, showing the two countries’ serious attitude towards disarmament and non-proliferation. As has been the case in recent years, alignment with the New Agenda Coalition (NAC) of likeminded nations3 and its association with the Vienna Group of Ten4 and the De-Alerting Group5 saw New Zealand make several positive contributions to the debate on nuclear weapons and non-proliferation. New Zealand’s representatives were active at the 2010 NPT Review Conference, the General Assembly of the United Nations (UN) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), where New Zealand completed its two-year mandate on the Board of Governors.

Nuclear issues involving North Korea and Iran remained at the forefront of the agenda of the Security Council and the IAEA, with the adoption of further sanctions and the expression of growing concerns regarding those States. The Security Council also had to deal with numerous situations that

threaten international peace and security, including crises in the Middle East, Africa and Asia.

This review follows the structure adopted in 2008 and 2009.6 It first considers the outcome of the 2010 NPT Review Conference. It then highlights selected resolutions adopted by the UN General Assembly as they relate to nuclear weapons, non-proliferation and international security (all relevant General Assembly resolutions may be found in Table I). Pertinent UN Security Council actions are also briefly summarised. A short overview of New Zealand’s involvement with the IAEA follows. The last two sections respectively focus on measures relating to international and regional security and on New Zealand’s policies, statements and domestic legislation.

II. The 2010 NPT Review Conference

The NPT Review Conference was held in New York from 3-28 May 2010. During the negotiations, New Zealand’s Ambassador for Disarmament, Dell Higgie, highlighted the resistance by nuclear-weapon States to accept any concrete commitments on nuclear disarmament, the lack of universality of the NPT and the fact the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT)7 has yet to enter into force 15 years after it was opened for signature and that the Conference on Disarmament is still unable to make progress on the negotiation of a treaty to prohibit the production of fissile material for weapons purposes, or on any other nuclear disarmament issues.8 However, she also noted the signature of the new START treaty between the United States and Russia, announcements by the United States and Indonesia that CTBT ratification was under serious consideration and the moves to increase transparency by certain nuclear-weapon States as important steps forward, and indicated that the Review Conference was “taking place at a time when there seems to be genuine prospects for progress on nuclear disarmament and on non-proliferation”.

As in previous years, the Middle East and North Korea continued to dominate a number of working papers.9 As noted in 2008 and 2009,10 the United States has reoriented its focus in recent years, highlighting not only the non-compliance of “violators” but also its own efforts to fulfil NPT objectives.11 Its 2010 paper12 noted that it was essential that the NPT Review be carried out effectively and that all States parties be onboard. The new START treaty with Russia, as noted by President Barack Obama at the signing ceremony in Prague, “demonstrates the determination of the United States and Russia ... to pursue responsible global leadership” and shows that Russia and the United States are keeping their commitments under the NPT treaty, “which must be the foundation for global nonproliferation”.13 Likewise, the recent Congress- mandated Nuclear Posture Review addressed the United States’ nuclear deterrence policy and strategy for reducing “the potential for nuclear conflict, enhancing strategic stability worldwide, ensuring the security of our friends and allies and strengthening the global nuclear nonproliferation regime” with the objective of further reducing numbers of nuclear weapons in its national security strategy and work towards “a world free of nuclear weapons”.14 The United States also signalled that it would work towards ratification of the CTBT.15 This policy reorientation by Washington contributed to a more positive approach to the NPT and reinforced the foreign policy objectives under President Obama.16

After four weeks of negotiations, States parties to the NPT adopted a final document for the first time since 2000.17 They agreed on an action plan comprising 64 actions in order to implement the obligations contained in the three “pillars” of the NPT: nuclear disarmament, nuclear non- proliferation and the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.18 The final document also contained a decision to convene a conference for the establishment of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East and to appoint a Special Coordinator on the issue,19 committed governments to comply with international humanitarian law and took note of the devastating humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons.20

New Zealand was an active participant in the NPT Review Conference. It submitted its own report on the NPT, outlining its position regarding the articles of the treaty.21 During the general debate, New Zealand stated that an incremental approach to nuclear disarmament was the only “realistic option”, based on a periodic assessment of systematic and progressive steps, and called on Iran to meet its international obligations.22 In a joint working paper,23

Australia and New Zealand recommended that the NPT treaty envisages both in its preamble and art VI that nuclear disarmament should take place through “effective measures” by calling on nuclear-weapon States to systematise their reporting and to provide these reports to five-yearly Review Conferences. It also called on all States to continue to report on their efforts to bring about nuclear disarmament, including the early entry into force of the CTBT and the commencement of negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty.

As a member of both the NAC and the Vienna Group of Ten, New Zealand was involved in the submission of a number of working papers for discussion, many of which were aimed at strengthening or reaffirming the enforcement and monitoring measures of the NPT.24 The De-alerting Group also submitted a working paper building on the consensus at the 2000 NPT Review Conference, where all States parties agreed that concrete measures to further reduce the operational status of nuclear weapons systems would promote international stability and, at the same time, serve the cause of nuclear disarmament. The working paper outlines that “action to lower the operational readiness of nuclear weapon systems is consistent with the imperative expressed in the first preambular paragraph of the Treaty to make every effort to avert the danger of nuclear war and to safeguard the security of peoples from the devastation of such conflict.”25 On behalf of Chile, Malaysia, Nigeria and Switzerland, New Zealand proposed “that States parties urge the nuclear-weapon States to take additional concrete measures to decrease the operational readiness of nuclear weapons systems, with a view to ensuring that all nuclear weapons are removed from high alert status” and called on the nuclear-weapon States to report regularly on measures they have taken to lower the operational readiness of their nuclear weapons systems with the hope that reductions in operational readiness “will translate into reductions in the role of nuclear weapons in security doctrines. This in turn will help instill a climate in which nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation prosper.”26

There were high expectations for the 2010 NPT Review Conference and, in general, the Conference represented a significant success. The adoption of an action plan was a positive sign. On the other hand, a lot of work is still needed, especially as concerns the adoption of a treaty on the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear-explosive devices.27

III. General Assembly

A. Nuclear Weapons and Non-Proliferation Resolutions

The General Assembly continued in the 65th session its adoption of resolutions relating to nuclear weapons and non-proliferation in a manner consistent with the 63rd and 64th sessions. Likewise, this section follows previous years’ approaches and sets out selected resolutions, grouped into two categories: nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and nuclear doctrine; and nuclear-weapon-free zones. Table I lists each relevant resolution (including those not highlighted in this section) and the voting breakdown. The United States did not adopt a consistent voting pattern opposing nuclear non- proliferation resolutions. Changes in United States foreign policy in recent years show an increased interest by Washington in multilateral approaches to non-proliferation, as noted last year.28

1. Nuclear Disarmament, Non-Proliferation and Nuclear Doctrine

A number of resolutions were adopted in relation to nuclear disarmament, non-proliferation and nuclear doctrine. This section covers some of the more prominent resolutions, especially where New Zealand’s voting may appear inconsistent with its general policy.

• 65/54 Promotion of Multilateralism in the Area of Disarmament and Non- Proliferation29

In Resolution 65/54, the General Assembly expresses its concern at the erosion of multilateralism in the areas of disarmament and non-proliferation. The resolution goes on to reaffirm multilateralism as the core principle in negotiations in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation and in resolving disarmament and non-proliferation concerns, and urges the participation of all interested States in multilateral negotiations on arms regulation, non-proliferation and disarmament in a non-discriminatory and transparent manner. It finally requests the Secretary-General to seek the views of member States on the issue of the promotion of multilateralism in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation and to submit a report thereon to the General Assembly at its 66th session. This resolution was sponsored by Indonesia on behalf of the Non-aligned Movement and was adopted 129 votes to five. New Zealand, along with 48 other member States, abstained from voting. New Zealand, Canada and Australia, in a joint statement, explained that they could not agree that multilateralism was the sole principle in negotiations in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation, and that effective progress in disarmament and non-proliferation required “a combination of unilateral, bilateral, plurilateral and multilateral measures to reinforce each other in order to achieve concrete results”.30

• 65/59 Nuclear-weapon-free World31

In Resolution 65/59, the General Assembly reiterates its grave concern at the danger posed by nuclear weapons, notes the renewed interest in nuclear disarmament and recognises the importance of the early entry into force of the CTBT. Furthermore, it expresses its satisfaction towards the results of the 2010 NPT Review Conference and welcomes the call at the Review Conference for nuclear-weapon States to enhance transparency to increase mutual confidence. Two main groups of States also come under scrutiny. First, the General Assembly reiterates its call to spare no effort to achieve the universality of the NPT, urging India, Israel and Pakistan to accede to the treaty as “non-nuclear-weapon States” promptly and unconditionally. Secondly, it urges North Korea to return to the NPT and to fulfil its commitments under the Six-Party Talks. The denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula is noted as a priority. This resolution was sponsored by the NAC, of which New Zealand is a member. The resolution was adopted by 173 votes to five. France, India, Israel, North Korea and the United States all voted against the resolution. Pakistan and the United Kingdom abstained. Similar resolutions were sponsored successfully by the NAC during the 63rd and 64th sessions.32

• 65/60 Reducing Nuclear Danger33

In Resolution 65/60, the General Assembly forms the view that the use of nuclear weapons poses the most serious threat to the survival of civilization. It further reaffirms that any use or threat of use of nuclear weapons would constitute a violation of the UN Charter and that nuclear disarmament and the complete elimination of nuclear weapons are essential to remove the danger of nuclear war. The General Assembly then calls for a review of nuclear doctrines and the immediate and urgent steps to reduce the risks of unintentional and accidental use of nuclear weapons, including through de-alerting and de-targeting nuclear weapons. It also calls upon member States to take the necessary measures to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons in all its aspects and to promote nuclear disarmament, with the objective of eliminating nuclear weapons. It finally requests the Secretary-General to intensify efforts and support initiatives that would contribute towards the full implementation of the seven recommendations identified in the report of the Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters that would significantly reduce the risk of nuclear war34 and to continue to encourage member States to consider the convening of an international conference, as proposed in the UN Millennium Declaration.35 Finally, it decides to include in the provisional agenda of its 66th session the item entitled “Reducing nuclear danger”.. This resolution was adopted by 121 votes to 49, with 14 abstentions. Australia, New Zealand and the United States voted against.

• 65/65 Fissile Material Production Ban Treaty36

In Resolution 65/65, the General Assembly welcomes the creation by the Conference on Disarmament, by consensus, of a working group for the purpose of negotiating a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or nuclear devices.37 The Assembly then urges the Conference of Disarmament to agree early in 2011 on a programme of work that includes the immediate commencement of negotiations on a fissile material production ban treaty and decides to include in the provisional agenda for the 66th session an item entitled “Treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices”. This resolution was adopted by 179 votes (including New Zealand) to one (Pakistan). North Korea and Syria abstained.

• 65/80 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use of Nuclear Weapons38

In Resolution 65/80, the General Assembly, bearing in mind the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion of 8 July 1996 on the Legality and Use of Nuclear Weapons39 and conscious of the more positive international climate on matters of nuclear disarmament and prohibition following the new START treaty, reiterates its request to the Conference on Disarmament to commence negotiations in order to reach agreement on a convention that prohibits the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons under any circumstances. The resolution expresses the conviction that multilateralism is an essential element of this. It also reaffirms that the use of nuclear weapons would be a violation of the UN Charter. The resolution was adopted 124 votes to 49. New Zealand, along with Australia and the United States, opposed this resolution. The resolution was sponsored by Afghanistan and 21 other States, most of which were developing countries.

• 65/91 Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty40

In Resolution 65/91, the General Assembly stresses that a universal and effectively verifiable treaty banning nuclear tests is a fundamental instrument in the field of nuclear disarmament. It welcomes the positive results achieved at the 2010 NPT Review conference and the Final Declaration of the Sixth Conference on Facilitating the Entry into Force of the CTBT held in September 2010. The General Assembly also stresses the vital importance of maintaining positive momentum and of ratifying the CTBT as soon as possible. Furthermore, it requests the Secretary-General, in consultation with the Preparatory Commission for the CTBT Organisation, to prepare a report on the efforts of States parties towards the CTBT’s universalisation and any possibility for providing assistance to States wishing to ratify it. A report on these points is to be submitted at the 66th session. The resolution was adopted by 179 votes to one (North Korea). New Zealand was one of 56 States to sponsor this resolution. India, Mauritius and Syria abstained from voting.

2. Nuclear-weapon-free Zones

• 65/39 Africa41

• 65/42 Middle East42

• 65/49 Treaty on a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in Central Asia43

• 65/58 Southern Hemisphere and Adjacent Areas44

• 65/70 Mongolia’s International Security and Nuclear-weapon-free Status45

A number of resolutions were adopted that advance the creation of nuclear- weapon-free zones in Africa, the Middle East, the Southern Hemisphere, Central Asia and Mongolia. Resolutions 65/39, 65/42 and 65/70 were adopted by consensus. Resolution 65/58 was adopted by 174 votes to three (France, United Kingdom and United States), with six abstentions (including India, Israel and Pakistan). New Zealand and Brazil were co-sponsors. Resolution 65/49 was adopted by 144 votes to 3, with 36 abstentions. New Zealand voted in favour, while France, the United Kingdom and the United States voted against. Australia abstained.

B. International and Regional Security Resolutions

Table I contains a separate section on General Assembly resolutions that concern international and regional security. Some of the most pertinent resolutions are detailed below, with a particular focus on regional security and confidence-building. The United States change in voting pattern is a major development. During the 63rd session, the United States voted against a number of resolutions.46 The United States did not repeat this pattern in the 64th and 65th sessions. In the 65th session, it supported every resolution except for Resolution 65/44 on the prevention of an arms race in outer space47 and Resolution 65/55 on the effects of the use of armaments and ammunitions containing depleted uranium,48 where it voted against, and Resolution 65/48 on the stockpiling and use of anti-personnel mines,49 where it abstained. Listed below are some of those resolutions.

• 65/48 Anti-personnel Mines50

In Resolution 65/48, the General Assembly notes with satisfaction the work undertaken to implement the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction.51 It urges States that have yet to sign or ratify the Convention to do so and stresses the importance of the full and effective implementation of and compliance with the Convention, including through the continued implementation of the Cartagena Action Plan 2010-2014. The resolution was adopted by 165 votes to zero, with 17 abstentions. New Zealand supported the resolution. Israel, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States abstained. The General Assembly remains seized of the matter.

• 65/55 Effects of the Use of Armaments and Ammunitions Containing Depleted Uranium52

In Resolution 65/55, the General Assembly takes note of the opinions of member States and international organisations on the effects of the use of armaments and ammunitions containing depleted uranium, and particularly on human health and the environment, and invites them to provide their views on those issues to the UN Secretary-General. Furthermore, it asks the Secretary-General to request relevant international organisations to revise and conclude their studies and research on the effects of the use of armaments and ammunitions containing depleted uranium on human health and the environment. The General Assembly also invites member States that have used armaments and ammunitions containing depleted uranium in armed conflicts to provide affected States details of the location of the areas of use and the amounts used, with the objective of facilitating the assessment of such areas. Finally, it requests the Secretary-General to submit an updated report on this subject to the General Assembly at its 67th session. The resolution was adopted by 148 votes to four, with 17 abstentions. New Zealand supported the resolution. France, Israel, the United Kingdom and the United States voted against it. The General Assembly remains seized of the matter.

• 65/64 Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons53

In Resolution 65/64, the General Assembly continues to emphasise the continued and full implementation of the International Tracing Instrument (the Instrument).54 It welcomes various regional and sub-regional initiatives in achieving the Instrument’s aims, and encourages all States to implement it. It decides that the open-ended meeting of governmental experts to address key implementation challenges and opportunities relating to particular issues and themes, including international cooperation and assistance, shall be held in New York from 9-13 May 2011. The General Assembly invites member States to communicate to the UN Secretary-General their views on the progress made on the implementation of the Programme of Action, ten years following its adoption, and requests the Secretary-General to present a report containing that information as an input to the 2012 Review Conference. As part of this, it encourages States, where possible, to develop common positions relevant to the Programme of Action. It also encourages States that have yet to submit their national reports to do so. The Secretary-General will report to the General Assembly in the 66th session on the implementation of this resolution. The resolution was adopted without a vote.

C. New Zealand’s Voting Patterns

Over the past few years, New Zealand’s voting patterns have remained consistent. By and large, New Zealand has voted in favour of resolutions that support non-proliferation or a reduction in nuclear arsenals. Interestingly, New Zealand has voted against some resolutions that seem to be in line with its policies. These anomalies may be explained through recourse to the resolutions’ sponsors. It would appear that New Zealand will not support resolutions which may seem disingenuous, such as Resolution 65/56, which was sponsored inter alia by Iran.55 On the occasions where New Zealand has intentionally either voted against or abstained from voting in a resolution, the United States has also either voted against or abstained from voting.56 As part of the NAC, New Zealand sponsored a number of resolutions. When New Zealand voted against a resolution, there was a notable break in the voting pattern of NAC States. This break mirrors that identified in the 63rd and 64th sessions,57 where New Zealand, Ireland and Sweden voted against the resolutions, while Brazil, Egypt, Mexico and South Africa voted for them.

IV. Security Council

In 2010, activity at the Security Council revolved around recurring themes (such as peacebuilding and counter-terrorism), domestic situations requiring UN scrutiny (for instance, Iran and Timor Leste) and a number of international crises threatening international peace and security (in particular, the “Gaza Freedom Flotilla” raid by Israel and North Korea’s use of force against South Korea).

Resolution 1912 reaffirms the Security Council’s commitment to the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and national unity of Timor- Leste and the long-term stability of the country.58 The resolution welcomes a number of successful efforts regarding the democratic political process and reaffirms the need “for respect for the independence of the judiciary, stressing the need to act against impunity”.. It also expresses support for the creation of an anti-corruption commission and the role of international forces in assisting the government and the UN Integrated Mission in Timor-Leste (UNMIT), in which New Zealand plays a part, in maintaining law, order and stability. It also welcomes the closing of all the camps for internally-displaced persons and the latter’s gradual reintegration into Timorese society. Accordingly, the Security Council decides to extend UNMIT’s mandate in Timor-Leste until 26 February 2011. Among other measures, the Security Council urges all parties and political leaders to consolidate peace, democracy, rule of law, human rights and sustainable social and economic development. It encourages the international community to continue to support Timor-Leste’s moves towards greater security and stability and supports the resumption of policing responsibilities by the Policia Nacional de Timor-Leste (PNTL) and the coordinated reconfiguration and drawdown of the UNMIT police component. UNMIT is also requested by the Security Council to assist the government in enhancing the effectiveness of the judiciary and supporting efforts in areas of institutional capacity-building. The Security-Council requests that the Secretary-General keep it informed of developments and decides to remain seized of the matter.

Resolution 1928, adopted unanimously on 7 June 2010, extends the mandate of a panel of experts monitoring sanctions against North Korea until 12 June 2011.59 The Security Council determines that the proliferation and delivery of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons constitute a threat to international peace and security and, acting under Chapter VII, extends the mandate of the expert panel established in Resolution 1874 to monitor the newly-strengthened sanctions regime against North Korea.60 The panel is requested to provide a report by 12 November 2010 and a second report 30 days prior to the termination of its current mandate with its findings and recommendations. All States, UN agencies and other stakeholders are urged to cooperate fully with the Committee of the Security Council established in Resolution 171861 and with the expert panel.

Resolution 192962 records Iran’s lack of compliance with previous resolutions on ensuring the peaceful nature of its nuclear programme, and imposes additional sanctions, expanding an arms embargo and tightening restrictions on financial and shipping enterprises related to “proliferation-sensitive activities”. The resolution further requests the UN Secretary-General to set up a panel of experts to monitor implementation of the sanctions. The resolution also states that Iran should not acquire interests in any commercial activity relating to uranium enrichment and other nuclear materials or technology in other States, and that all States should prevent the transfer to Iran of any tanks, armoured combat vehicles, large-calibre artillery systems, attack helicopters, or missiles and related systems or parts. It also calls upon all States to report to the relevant Sanctions Committee, within 60 days, on the steps they have taken to implement the necessary measures. The resolution indicates that the Security Council will suspend the sanctions if, and so long as, Iran suspends all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, as verified by the IAEA, to allow for good-faith negotiations. It also affirms the Security Council’s determination to apply further measures if Iran continues to defy the just-adopted text as well as previous resolutions.

Resolution 194763 recognises the role of the Peacebuilding Commission as a dedicated inter-governmental advisory body to address the needs of countries emerging from conflict towards sustainable peace and welcomes the report entitled “Review of the United Nations Peacebuilding Architecture”,64 which is based on extensive consultations with the UN membership and other stakeholders. The Security Council requests all relevant UN actors to take forward the recommendations of the report with the aim of further improving the effectiveness of the Peacebuilding Commission. It also recognises that the peacebuilding work of the UN requires sustained support and adequate resources to meet future challenges. It further requests the Peacebuilding Commission to reflect in its annual reports on progress made in taking forward the relevant recommendations of the report and calls for a further comprehensive review five years after the adoption of the present resolution following the procedure set out in Resolution 1645 (2005).65

In Resolution 1963, the Security Council unanimously extends the mandate of the Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate (CTED) through 31 December 2013.66 The Counter-Terrorism Committee was established in the wake of the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States by Resolution 1373, which obliges all States to criminalise assistance for terrorist activities, deny financial support and safe haven to terrorists, and to share information about groups planning terrorist attacks.67 The CTED, which carries out the policy decisions of the Committee, conducts expert assessments of each member State and facilitates counter-terrorism technical assistance to countries to prevent terrorist acts both within their borders and across regions. The outgoing Chair of the Committee, Ertugrul Apakan of Turkey, briefed the Security Council on its work, saying that he “had tried to make the work of the Counter-Terrorism Committee more visible around the world, and to look into “the evolving nature of terrorism’ to identify issues and the regions that need more attention”.68 As a result, the Committee had adopted a more strategic and focused approach, and the Committee “should dwell more on issues such as incitement to terrorism and prevention, as well as continue to focus on capacity building which is one of the challenges for many countries.”69

In the wake of the “Gaza Flotilla Raid” incident,70 the President of the Security Council made a statement on 1 June 2010 on its behalf, in which he said that the Security Council “deeply regrets the loss of life and injuries resulting from the use of force during the Israeli military operation in international waters against the convoy sailing to Gaza.”71 The statement requests the immediate release of the ships and civilians held by Israel and calls for “a prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation conforming to international standards”. Recalling the importance of the full implementation of Resolutions 1850 and 1860,72 it reiterates “its grave concern at the humanitarian situation in Gaza” and underscored that the only viable solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an agreement negotiated between the parties and “that only a two-State solution, with an independent and viable Palestinian State living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbours, could bring peace to the region”.

V. International Atomic Energy Agency

The IAEA’s 54th General Conference of member States concluded on 24 September 2010, in Vienna. Over 1,300 delegates from the IAEA’s 151 member States attended the annual policy-making meeting. The General Conference adopted resolutions on a variety of issues to guide the IAEA’s work in the coming year,73 including: the programme and budget for 2011; measures to strengthen international cooperation in nuclear, radiation, transportation and waste safety; measures strengthening the IAEA’s technical cooperation activities and those related to nuclear science, technology and applications; and, measures strengthening the effectiveness and improving the efficiency of the safeguards system and application of the Model Additional Protocol. Swaziland’s application for IAEA membership was approved.74 The Middle East and North Korea were each the subject of separate resolutions. The General Conference called on all States in the Middle East to accede and implement all relevant nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation conventions and to cooperate fully with the IAEA within the framework of their respective obligations, and it again advocated for the creation of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.75 The General Conference requested North Korea not to conduct any further nuclear test and to fully comply with its obligations under relevant Security Council resolutions, support the Six-Party Talks as an effective mechanism for dealing with the nuclear issue in the Korean Peninsula, and called on North Korea to fully comply with the NPT and “to cooperate promptly with the Agency in the full and effective implementation of Agency comprehensive safeguards, and to resolve any outstanding issues that may have arisen due to the long absence of Agency safeguards and the lack of Agency access since April 2009”.76

New Zealand made a number of statements at the General Conference. New Zealand registered its disappointment at North Korea’s actions to develop a nuclear programme and called upon North Korea to comply with the NPT, cooperate with the IAEA in implementing the Agency comprehensive safeguards and to heed the call by the 2010 NPT Review Conference for North Korea to return to the treaty.77 New Zealand noted that Iran had continued with its enrichment activities and expected “Iran to cooperate with the IAEA to the extent necessary for the Agency’s fulfilment of its verification mandate”.78 New Zealand also made statements regarding the Middle East.79

VI. International and Regional Security

In 2010, New Zealand remained active in a variety of fora, promoting security and counter-terrorist measures and contributing to the efforts of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan,80 to the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands (R AMSI)81 and to UNMIT in Timor-Leste.82

New Zealand was heavily involved in Afghanistan in 2010. Since the government deployed Special Air Services (SAS) troops following an official request by the United States on 19 April 2009,83 the SAS have made 60 “high- risk” arrests of suspected militants or Taliban leaders, seized 20 weapons caches and foiled four attacks, successfully executing “more than 90% of its operations and raids without firing a shot”.84 New Zealand also has about 120 New Zealand Defence Force personnel running the Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) in Afghanistan’s Bamiyan Province, two instructors attached to the United Kingdom Leadership Training Team (based out of Kabul) to assist the development of Afghan National Army junior leaders, one staff officer in Bagram in support of coalition operations, two staff officers and one non-commissioned officer in Kabul at ISAF Headquarters, and one non-commissioned officer working alongside coalition Remote Controlled Improvised Explosive Device (RCIED) personnel, as well as a liaison officer at the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA).85

Last year, this review had mentioned the conclusion of a partnership framework between the government of Solomon Islands and R AMSI in April 2009, providing for shared ownership and mutual responsibility for R AMSI’s programmes and setting clear targets for their gradual phase-down.86

Following the general elections of August 2010 in Solomon Islands, and in accordance with this partnership framework, R AMSI gradually stepped back in a number of areas to allow a greater role to Solomon Islanders in shaping their country’s future. That said, as transition proceeds, R AMSI will continue to work closely with the Solomon Islands government and the Royal Solomon Islands Police Force to maintain peace and stability.87

In April 2006, following mass demonstrations by ex-military personnel, Timor-Leste once again experienced a serious breakdown in internal security.

More than 100,000 people were forced from their homes in the unrest that followed. Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia and Portugal responded to Timor-Leste’s request for assistance by deploying police and military troops as the International Stabilisation Force (ISF). In August 2006, the UN Security Council established UNMIT to assist with the recovery process. The mission was focused on policing, deploying more than 1000 officers from some 40 countries. UNMIT is now in the process of handing back control of policing to the PNTL. The handover should be completed by 2011, although UNMIT is expected to stay in Timor-Leste in a support and mentoring role until after the 2012 elections. Since 2008, New Zealand Police deployed to Timor-Leste have been working mainly on community policing training for the PNTL. The ISF is also still in operation but has been downsized considerably from around 800 to about 450, and it only involves Australia and New Zealand.88

New Zealand is involved in many other international peace support operations.89 In particular, New Zealand has made a longstanding contribution to UN peacekeeping in the Middle East.. On 1 March 2010, Major-General Warren Whiting of the NZDF assumed Force Command of the Multinational Force and Observer (MFO) in the Sinai, which monitors the Peace Agreement between Egypt and Israel.90

New Zealand has made a number of significant statements at the UN to underline its commitment to both global and regional counter-terrorism and security initiatives.

Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1373,91 New Zealand maintains a list of designated terrorist entities. In 2010, over 25 entities were added to the list while 39 were delisted, and about a dozen of listings were amended.92 In a statement to the General Assembly, Sue Robertson, speaking on behalf of Australia, Canada and New Zealand (CANZ),93 welcomed the recent adoption of the Beijing Convention on the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Relating to International Civil Aviation and the Beijing Protocol Supplementary to the Convention to the Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft94 as “an important advancement” for counter-terrorism by closing remaining gaps in the counter-terrorism legal framework. She then looked at the need to develop effective legal frameworks in the fight against terrorism across the Pacific region to contribute to the strengthening of regional stability and security and to the implementation of the UN counter-terrorism legal instruments, while at the same time ensuring “laws and powers are balanced by appropriate safeguards and are accountable in their operation”.. She concluded by stating that “CANZ encourages the strengthening of legislative, regulatory and other measures to prevent and combat terrorist financing as active members”, inter alia, of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and similar regional bodies, the Asia Pacific Group on Money Laundering and the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force.

New Zealand is an active member of the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) since 2004. The PSI advances international cooperation to stop shipments of weapons of mass destruction, delivery systems and related materials flowing to State and non-State actors of proliferation concern.95 New Zealand is also an active participant in the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism (GICNT). The GICNT focuses its activities on securing radioactive sources through both physical and regulatory means, “preventing the illicit movement of radioactive sources, and enhancing preparedness to respond to and mitigate terrorist incidents involving nuclear or radiological materials”.96

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade administers two regional security funds, the Asia Security Fund and the Pacific Security Fund. Both funds are available to support counter-terrorism capacity-building and regional security initiatives in the Asia-Pacific region. New Zealand recognises the requirement for a long-term investment in cooperation with South East Asian partners and for initiatives aimed at building trust and cooperation across communities in the region. The Asia Security Fund (NZ$1 million annually) supports a range of initiatives within or focusing on South East Asia, including building capacity and increasing coordination across law enforcement agencies, strengthening and encouraging implementation of legal frameworks97 as well as counter-radicalisation work through projects aimed at youth, media, and education. These projects lend practical support to New Zealand’s wider commitment to regional and multilateral initiatives such as the Asia-Pacific Regional Interfaith Dialogue, which New Zealand co-sponsors alongside Australia, Indonesia and the Philippines, and the United Nations-led Alliance of Civilisations in which New Zealand is a member of the “Group of Friends”.98 The Pacific Security Fund is available to New Zealand government departments and agencies to undertake activities that will advance or protect New Zealand’s security interests by reducing risks from threats arising in or operating through Pacific island countries. It is administered by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade with a budget for 2009-2010 of NZ$3 million.99

VII. New Zealand Policies, Statements and Regulations

The New Zealand approach to disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation has been mentioned above regarding the 2010 NPT Review Conference and the 54th IAEA General Conference. In her statement to the General Assembly, Alison Kelly, speaking on behalf of the NAC, outlined its policy direction in relation to nuclear disarmament.100 The NAC reaffirmed its commitment to the NPT and the three pillars of the treaty: nuclear disarmament, nuclear non-proliferation and the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The Coalition emphasised in particular its absolute belief in the elimination of nuclear weapons as an essential element of ensuring that nuclear energy be used only for peaceful purposes. Especially pleasing outcomes in 2010 included the successful NPT Review Conference. Furthermore, the NAC co-sponsored General Assembly Resolution 65/59 on a nuclear-weapon-free world101 and New Zealand co-sponsored a number of other resolutions mentioned in Table I.

New Zealand policy clearly favours a diplomatic resolution to the difficult situations relating to Iran, North Korea and the Middle East.

Over recent years, Iran’s nuclear programme and human rights record have come under increased scrutiny. New Zealand has explicitly supported resolutions adopted by the UN Security Council and by the IAEA’s Board of Governors. New Zealand made an intervention at Iran’s Universal Periodic Review of Human Rights which took place in Geneva in February 2010, calling on Iran to honour its international human rights commitments and requesting that Iran conduct the trial of the Baha’i Yarran in a fair and transparent manner, consistent with Iranian law, natural justice and legal due process.102 The current Ambassador of Iran in New Zealand is His Excellency Mr Seyed Majid Tafreshi Khameneh, who presented his credentials in December 2010.

New Zealand condemned the shelling by North Korea of the civilian population on Yeonpyeong Island, 75 kilometres off the west coast of South Korea, in November 2010,103 and the destruction, earlier in the year, of a South Korean warship, the Cheonan,104 “as a new and dangerous level of aggression” by Pyongyang.105

On 1 June 2010, the New Zealand government condemned the violence and especially the loss of life in the incident in international waters off the coast of the Gaza Strip following the Israeli military operation against the “Gaza Freedom Flotilla”.106 Foreign Minister Hon Murray McCully said that he was “taking immediate steps to communicate the Government’s concerns over this incident to the Government of Israel.” He indicated that the government supported calls for a full investigation into the incident and called “for restraint from all parties in dealing with the aftermath of this incident”. Among those on board the flotilla was a New Zealand citizen, who was detained by Israeli authorities. On 3 August 2010, he welcomed the decision by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon to appoint Sir Geoffrey Palmer to head the UN’s Panel of Inquiry into the flotilla incident off Gaza in May 2010. In congratulating Sir Geoffrey’s appointment as an independent expert, he reiterated New Zealand and other States’ long-term goal of an enduring peace for all in the Middle East.107 Still regarding the Middle East, Foreign Minister McCully earlier in the year had conducted a visit to Egypt, Israel, Ramallah (in the occupied Palestinian territories) and Turkey to encourage further growth in trading relationships and to discuss regional security issues. Such a visit underlined New Zealand’s “principled and balanced approach” to the key issues in the Middle East.108

On 24 September 2010, Foreign Affairs Minister McCully addressed the UN General Assembly,109 reaffirming at the outset New Zealand’s commitment to the UN Charter and underlining the role played by New Zealand soldiers, police, engineers, corrections and customs officers, doctors, and other personnel in “12 operations that span the globe - Africa, Afghanistan, the Middle East, Asia, and the Pacific”. He singled out involvement in Timor-Leste since 1999 as one of the clearest examples of New Zealand’s commitment to the principles of collective responsibility through the UN. He also highlighted New Zealand’s role in containing terrorism as a key reason why New Zealand has led the PRT in Bamyan, Afghanistan, since 2003 and has redeployed special forces “to work alongside the Government of Afghanistan and the international community to ensure that that country does not return to being a safe haven for Al Qaeda”. He then went on to discuss the need for peacekeeping reform at the UN, New Zealand’s contribution to UN efforts to strengthen peacebuilding in practice, including the need for better participation of women in peacebuilding and New Zealand’s strong support for the “Responsibility to Protect” principle. He reiterated New Zealand’s intention to seek a seat on the Security Council for the 2015-16 term and recalled the significant gains that have been made in global disarmament in 2010 and the entry into force of the Convention on Cluster Munitions.110 He concluded by endorsing President Obama’s statement that there is no viable alternative to the resolution of the conflict in the Middle East other than Israel and Palestine as two States living side-by- side in peace and security, and that New Zealand, as a friend of both Israel and Palestine, would play its part.

On the same day, he addressed the High-Level Meeting on Revitalising the Work of the Conference on Disarmament and Taking Forward Multilateral Disarmament Negotiations.111 In his statement, he recalled the interest of all States in negotiations for disarmament and arms control and the crucial role of the Conference on Disarmament as a multilateral body to curb the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the materials and technology used to make such weapons. He said that New Zealand attaches “particular importance to the conclusion of a treaty to cut off the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons and other nuclear explosive devices” and expressed the hope that once the CTBT enters into force, a fissile material cut-off treaty will be “the logical next step in controlling the spread and further development of nuclear weapons”. He also mentioned New Zealand’s willingness to discuss the reform of the Conference and the multilateral disarmament machinery. The remarks came in the context that the Conference on Disarmament was unable, from 1997 to 2009, to agree on a programme of work for actively engaging in new negotiations. Despite the fact that the Conference on Disarmament had agreed in May 2009 on a programme of work which mandated the beginning of negotiations on a fissile material cut off treaty as well as the establishment of working groups on nuclear disarmament, prevention of an arms race in outer space and negative security assurances, the Conference on Disarmament was unable subsequently to agree on the implementation of the programme of work during 2009 and 2010.

New Zealand representatives also addressed the General Assembly and other international fora on important issues regarding nuclear and conventional weapons, disarmament, international security and counter-terrorism.112

At the domestic level, regulations were made or amended in accordance with UN sanctions regarding Eritrea, Iran and North Korea.. The United Nations Sanctions (Eritrea) Regulations 2010 adopted on 26 April 2010 gave effect to Resolution 1907 (2009) of the UN Security Council, which created an arms embargo against Eritrea.113 Regulations 4-8 and 10-11 respectively prohibit the exportation and carriage of arms to Eritrea, and under reg 12, no one in New Zealand or any New Zealand citizen outside New Zealand may provide to, or at the request of, any person within Eritrea, any assistance, advice, or training related to military activities. The United Nations Sanctions (Iran) Regulations 2010 prohibit the importation, carriage and procurement of specified goods to Iran. The regulations also prohibit the export to Iran of nuclear weapons, missile or enrichment-related goods. The United Nations Sanctions (Iran) Amendment Regulations 2010, made on 22 November 2010, gave effect to Resolution 1929 (2010).114 Finally, the United Nations Sanctions (Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea) Amendment Regulations 2010 on 26 April 2010 amended the United Nations Sanctions (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) Regulations 2006.

VIII. Conclusion

New Zealand remained actively involved in matters relating to nuclear weapons, non-proliferation as well as international and regional security throughout 2010. The emergence of politicised voting by New Zealand in General Assembly resolutions on nuclear-related resolutions, which was already noted in previous years, is now well-established, at least when Iran or the member States of the Non-aligned Movement are the sponsors. This apparently ambiguous position possibly reflects the current political climate. New Zealand has in other areas maintained a strong pro-non-proliferation stance. This is evidenced by New Zealand’s participation at the 54th IAEA Conference and at the 2010 NPT Review Conference.

At both global and regional levels, New Zealand maintained its active role in relation to international security, counter-terrorism capacity-building and in relation to international security. New Zealand continued its involvement in Timor-Leste, Solomon Islands and Afghanistan. New Zealand also made a number of statements highlighting its concerns regarding the Middle East and a number of other countries.


Alberto Costi
Victoria University of Wellington

NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, NON-PROLIFERATION & INTERNATIONAL SECURITY – 2010

Table 1: UN Gener al Assembly Resolutions on Nuclear Weapons and

Selected Resolutions on International Security, 65th Session (2010)

1 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (opened for signature on 1 July 1968, entered into force on 5 March 1970).
2 Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (signed on 8 April 2010). Available at <http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/140035.pdf> .
3 The New Agenda Coalition (NAC) is a group of middle power States seeking to build international consensus to make progress on nuclear disarmament. It comprises Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa and Sweden.
4 The Vienna Group of Ten includes Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and Sweden.
5 The De-alerting Group brings together Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Nigeria and Switzerland on the issue of decreasing the operational readiness of nuclear weapons systems. Since 2007, those countries have called for action to address the significant numbers of nuclear weapons that still exist today at high levels of readiness.
6 Alberto Costi “Year in Review: Nuclear Weapons, Non-proliferation, International Security” (2008) 6 NZYIL 341 [“2008”]; Alberto Costi “Year in Review: Nuclear Weapons, Non- proliferation & International Security” (2009) 7 NZYIL 354 [“2009”].
7 Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (adopted on 10 September 1996, not yet in force). Available at <http://www.ctbto.org/the-treaty/> .
8 Dell Higgie, New Zealand Ambassador for Disarmament “Main Committee I, 2010 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons 3-28 May 2010” (NPT Review Conference, New York, 11 May 2010).
9 See Costi “2009”, above n 6, at 355. All official documents relating to the 2010 NPT Review Conference may be accessed online at <http://www.un.org/en/conf/npt/2010/> .
10 Costi “2008”, above n 6, at 343, citing in particular United States “Compliance and the Treaty on Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons – Working Paper” UN Doc NPT/CONF.2010/ PC.II/WP.27 (2008); Costi “2009”, above n 6, at 355, citing in particular United States “Progress Towards Nuclear Disarmament by the United States of America – Working Paper” UN Doc NPT/CONF.2010/PC.III/WP.31 (2009).
11 United States “United States information pertaining to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons” UN Doc NPT/CONF.2010/45 (2010).
12 Ibid, at 5-6.
13 Ibid, at 20.
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid, at 22.
16 The United States paper mentions President Obama’s pledge at Prague in April 2009 to take concrete steps to ensure that States may access peaceful nuclear power without increasing the risks of proliferation: “[t]hat must be the right of every nation that renounces nuclear weapons, especially developing countries embarking on peaceful programs” (ibid, at 17).
17 “Final Document of the 2010 NPT Review Conference (Parts I and II)” UN Doc NPT/ CONF.2010/50 (Vol I) (2010).
18 Ibid, at 19-29.
19 Ibid, at 30.
20 Ibid, at 19.
21 New Zealand “Implementation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons – Report submitted by New Zealand” UN Doc NPT/CONF.2010/27 (2010).
22 Hon Georgina te Heuheu, Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control “New Zealand General Debate Statement – 2010 Review Conference of the Parities to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, 3-28 May 2010” (NPT Review Conference, New York, 4 May 2010).
23 Australia and New Zealand “Working paper submitted by Australia and New Zealand” UN Doc NPT/CONF.2010/WP.40 (2010).
24 See Egypt et al “Working paper submitted by Egypt on behalf of Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa and Sweden as members of the New Agenda Coalition” UN Doc NPT/CONF.2010/WP.8 (2010); Australia et al “Working paper submitted by Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and Sweden (‘the Vienna Group of Ten’)” UN Doc NPT/CONF.2010/ WP.15 (2010); Australia et al “Working paper submitted by Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and Sweden (‘the Vienna Group of Ten’)” UN Doc NPT/CONF.2010/WP.16 (2010); Australia et al “Working paper submitted by Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and Sweden (‘the Vienna Group of Ten’)”, UN Doc NPT/CONF.2010/WP.17 (2010); Australia et al “Working paper submitted by Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and Sweden (‘the Vienna Group of Ten’)” UN Doc NPT/CONF.2010/ WP.19 (2010); Australia et al “Working paper submitted by Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and Sweden (‘the Vienna Group of Ten’)” UN Doc NPT/CONF.2010/WP.20 (2010); Australia et al “Article III and the fourth and fifth preambular paragraphs, especially in their relationship to article IV and the sixth and seventh preambular paragraphs (compliance and verification). Working paper submitted by Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and Sweden (‘the Vienna Group of Ten’)” UN Doc NPT/CONF.2010/WP.21 (2010); Australia et al “Proposal by Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and Sweden (‘the Vienna Group of Ten’)” UN Doc NPT/CONF.2010/WP.38 (2010).
25 New Zealand et al “Working paper submitted by New Zealand on behalf of Chile, Malaysia, Nigeria and Switzerland” Doc UN NPT/CONF.2010/WP.10 (2010).
26 Dell Higgie, New Zealand Ambassador for Disarmament “Main Committee I, 2010 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons 3-28 May 2010: Statement by Dell Higgie Ambassador for Disarmament on behalf of Chile, Malaysia, Nigeria, Switzerland and New Zealand” (NPT Review Conference, New York, 11 May 2010).
27 European Union “Council Decision 2010/212/CFSP of 29 March 2010 relating to the position of the European Union for the 2010 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons: Working paper submitted by Spain on behalf of the European Union” UN Doc NPT/CONF.2010/WP.31 (2010).
28 Costi “2009”, above n 6, at 357.
29 Promotion of Multilateralism in the Area of Disarmament and Non Proliferation GA Res 65/54,A/RES/65/54 (2010) [‘GA Res 65/54’].
30 Dell Higgie, New Zealand Ambassador for Disarmament “CANZ EOV – Promotion of Multilateralism in the Area of Disarmament and Non-proliferation (First Committee, 65th Session, 8 December 2010).
31 Towards a Nuclear-weapon-free World: Accelerating the Implementation of Nuclear Disarmament Commitments GA Res 65/59, A/RES/65/59 (2010) [‘GA Res 65/59’].
32 Towards a Nuclear-weapon-free World: Accelerating the Implementation of Nuclear Disarmament Commitments GA Res 63/58, A/RES/63/58 (2008); Towards a Nuclear-weapon-free World: Accelerating the Implementation of Nuclear Disarmament Commitments GA Res 64/57, A/ RES/64/57 (2009).
33 Reducing Nuclear Danger, GA Res 65/60, A/RES/65/60 2010) [‘GA Res 65/60’].
34 “Summary of the discussions of the Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters on specific measures that would significantly reduce the risk of nuclear war, as approved by the Chairman of the Advisory Board on 30 August 2001” UN Doc A/56/400 (2001) at [3].
35 United Nations Millennium Declaration GA Res 55/2, A/RES/55/2 (2000).
36 Treaty Banning the Production of Fissile Material for Nuclear Weapons or Other Nuclear Explosive Devices GA Res 65/65, A/RES/65/65 (2010).
37 See Conference on Disarmament Decision on the Establishment of a Programme of Work for the 2009 Session, 1139th plen mtg, UN Doc CD/1864 (2009).
38 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use of Nuclear Weapons GA Res 65/80, A/RES/65/80 (2010) [‘GA Res 65/80’].
39 Legality and Use of Nuclear Weapons (Advisory Opinion) [1996] ICJ Rep 226.
40 Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty GA Res 65/91, A/RES/65/91 (2010).
41 African Nuclear-weapon-free Zone Treaty GA Res 65/39, A/RES/65/39 (2010).
42 Establishment of a Nuclear-weapon-free Zone in the Region of the Middle East GA Res 65/42, A/ RES/65/42 (2010).
43 Treaty on a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in Central Asia GA Res 65/49, A/RES/65/49 (2010).
44 Nuclear-weapon-free Southern Hemisphere and Adjacent Areas GA Res 65/58, A/RES/65/58 (2010).
45 Mongolia’s International Security and Nuclear-weapon-free Status GA Res 65/70, A/RES/65/70 (2010).
46 Prohibition of the Development and Manufacture of New Types of Weapons of Mass Destruction and New Systems of Such Weapons of Mass Destruction and New Systems of Such Weapons: Report of the Conference on Disarmament GA Res 63/36, A/RES/63/36 (2009); Developments in the Field of Information and Telecommunications in the Context of International Security GA Res 63/37, A/RES/63/37 (2009); Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space GA Res 63/40, A/ RES/63/40 (2009).
47 Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space GA Res 65/44, A/RES/65/44 (2010).
48 Effects of the Use of Armaments and Ammunitions Containing Depleted Uranium GA Res 65/55, A/RES/65/55 (2010) [‘GA Res 65/55’].
49 Implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-personnel Mines and on Their Destruction GA Res 65/48, A/RES/65/48 (2010).
50 Ibid.
51 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti- personnel Mines and on Their Destruction (opened for signature on 3 December 1997, entered into force on 1 March 1999) ..
52 GA Res 65/55, above n 48.
53 Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects GA Res 65/64, A/RES/65/64 (2010).
54 International Instrument to Enable States to Identify and Trace, in a Timely and Reliable Manner, Illicit Small Arms and Light Weapons annexed to Report of the Open-ended Working Group to Negotiate an International Instrument to Enable States to Identify and Trace, in a Timely and Reliable Manner, Illicit Small Arms and Light Weapons UNGAOR, 60th sess, UN Doc A/60/88 (2005).
55 Nuclear Disarmament GA Res 65/56, A/RES/65/56 (2010) [“GA Res 65/56”]. That said, New Zealand did vote in favour of Follow-up to the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons GA Res 65/76, A/ RES/65/76 (2010), even though Iran was one of the lead sponsors.
56 GA Res 65/54, above n 29, and GA Res 65/56, above n 55 (United States voted against, but New Zealand abstained); GA Res 65/60, above n 33, and GA Res 65/80, above n 38 (New Zealand and the United States voted against).
57 See Costi “2008”, above n 6, at 349-350; Costi “2009”, above n 6, at 363.
58 Security Council Resolution 1912 on the Situation in Timor-Leste SC Res 1912, S/RES/1912 (2010) [‘SC Res 1912’].
59 Security Council Resolution 1928 on Non-proliferation/Democratic People’s Republic of Korea SC Res 1928, S/RES/1928 (2010).
60 Security Council Resolution 1874 on Non-proliferation/Democratic People’s Republic of Korea SC Res 1874, S/RES/1874 (2009).
61 Security Council Resolution 1718 on Non-proliferation/Democratic People’s Republic of Korea SC Res 1718, S/RES/1718 (2006).
62 Security Council Resolution 1929 on Non-proliferation SC Res 1929, S/RES/1929 (2010) [‘SC Res 1929’].
63 Security Council Resolution 1947 on Post-conflict Peacebuilding SC Res 1947, S/RES/1947 (2010).
64 “Review of the United Nations Peacebuilding Architecture” annexed to the “Identical Letters Dated 19 July 2010 from the Permanent Representatives of Ireland, Mexico and South Africa to the United Nations Addressed to the President of the General Assembly and the President of the Security Council” UN Doc A/64/88, UN Doc S/2010/393 (2010).
65 Security Council Resolution 1645 on Post-conflict Peacebuilding SC Res 1645, S/RES/1645 (2005).
66 Security Council Resolution 1963 on Threats to International Peace and Security Caused by Terrorist Acts, SC Res 1963, S/RES/1963 (2010).
67 Security Council Resolution 1373 on Threats to International Peace and Security Caused by Terrorist Acts, SC Res 1373, S/RES/1373 (2001) [‘SC Res 1373’].
68 “UN Counter-Terrorism Body to Continue As Is for 3 More Years” Scoop World (New Zealand, 21 December 2010) at <http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories> .
69 Ibid.
70 “UN members decry Israeli raid on Gaza aid flotilla” BBC (Great Britain, 1 June 2010) at <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10200351> . The “Gaza flotilla raid” was a military operation by Israel against six ships of the “Gaza Freedom Flotilla” that occurred on 31 May 2010 in international waters of the Mediterranean Sea. The ships were carrying humanitarian aid and construction materials, with the intention of breaking the Israeli-Egyptian blockade of the Gaza Strip.
71 Statement by the President of the Security Council on The Situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian Question UN Doc S/PRST/2010/9 (2010).
72 Security Council Resolution 1850 on the Situation in the Middle East, Including the Palestinian Question SC Res 1850, UNSCOR, S/RES/1850 (2008); Security Council Resolution 1860 on the Situation in the Middle East, Including the Palestinian Question SC Res 1860, S/RES/1860 (2009).
73 The adopted resolutions are all available online from the website of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) <http://w w w.iaea.org/About/Policy/GC/GC54/Resolutions/index. html> .
74 IAEA Applications for Membership of the Agency - Application by the Kingdom of Swaziland GC(54)/RES/1 (2010).
75 IAEA Application of IAEA safeguards in the Middle East GC(54)/RES/13 (2010).
76 IAEA Implementation of the NPT safeguards agreement between the Agency and the Democrati People’s Republic of Korea GC(54)/RES/12 (2010).
77 New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) “Report by the Director General on the application of safeguards in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea” (IAEA Board of Governors Meeting, Vienna, 13-17 September 2010) at <http://www.mfat.govt.nz/> .
78 MFAT “Agenda item 7 (d): Implementation of the NPT safeguard agreement and relevant provisions of United Nations Security Council resolutions in the Islamic Republic of Iran” (IAEA Board of Governors Meeting, Vienna, 13-17 September 2010) at <http://www.mfat. govt.nz/> .
79 MFAT “Agenda item 8(b) Israeli Nuclear Capabilities” (IAEA Board of Governors Meeting, Vienna, 13-17 September 2010) available at <http://www.mfat.govt.nz/> MFAT “Implementation of the NPT safeguards agreement in the Syrian Arab Republic” (IAEA Board of Governors Meeting, Vienna, 13-17 September 2010) at <http://www.mfat.govt.nz/> .
80 According to the website of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), New Zealand’s current contribution is of 188 defence personnel: “About ISAF. New Zealand” ISAF <http://www.isaf.nato.int/troop-numbers-and-contributions/new-zealand/index.php> .
81 New Zealand currently has 38 police and 42 defence personnel in Solomon Islands, as part of a broad Pacific taskforce. See “Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands” (2011) MFAT <http://www.mfat.govt.nz/> .
82 SC Res 1912, above n 87, extended the mandate of the UN Integrated Mission in Timor- Leste (UNMIT) until 26 February 2011. Until 2009, New Zealand provided 25 police officers to UNMIT. As an acknowledgment of the improving security situation, the number has dropped down to 10 during 2010. The New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) currently contributes one platoon plus supporting elements, totalling around 75 personnel, and maintains five technical advisers in Timor-Leste to provide training assistance to the Timor- Leste Armed Forces.
83 “SAS to be deployed in Afghanistan” Stuff Online (New Zealand, 10 August 2009) at <http:// www.stuff.co.nz/> .
84 Tim Hume “Top Medal From US For Kiwi SAS Commander” The Sunday Star-Times (New Zealand, 16 January 2011) at 1.
85 See “Country Paper: Islamic Republic of Afghanistan” (2011) MFAT <http://www.mfat. govt.nz> at 21 October 2011. On 4 August 2010, Lieutenant Timothy Andrew O’Donnell became New Zealand’s first combat casualty in Afghanistan. He was part of the New Zealand Provincial Reconstruction Team in Bamyian Province. He was killed while on patrol: “NZ soldier killed in Afghanistan named” New Zealand Herald (New Zealand, 4 August 2010).
86 Costi “2009”, above n 6, at 366 fn 62.
87 “The Partnership Framework” Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands <http:// www.ramsi.org/about/partnership-framework.html> .
88 “Country Paper: Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste” (2011) MFAT <http://www.mfat. govt.nz/Countries/Asia-South-and-Southeast/Timor-Leste.php> .
89 “Peace Support Operations” (2010) MFAT <http://www.mfat.govt.nz/Foreign-Relations/1- Global-Issues/International-Security/4-Peacekeeping-Operations.php> .
90 NZDF “New Zealander takes command of Multinational Force in Sinai” (press release, 3 March 2010) at <http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/> .
91 SC Res 1373, above n 67.
92 A full list of terrorist designations is available at New Zealand Police “New Zealand’s Designated Terrorist Individuals and Organisations” <http://www.police.govt.nz/> .
93 Sue Robertson, First Secretary (Legal Adviser), Australian Mission to the United Nations “CANZ Statement to the UN General Assembly: Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism (General Assembly, New York, 5 October 2011) at <http://www.mfat.govt.nz/> .
94 Convention on the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Relating to International Civil Aviation and the Protocol Supplementary to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft (concluded on 10 September 2010, not yet in force).
95 See “Counter-Proliferation Initiatives” (2010) MFAT <http://www.mfat.govt.nz/> .
96 Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism (GICNT) Statement of Principles (United States Department of State, Washington DC, 2009) at <http://www.state.gov/documents/ organization/141995.pdf> . Since its inception in 2006, the GICNT has grown into a partnership of 82 nations and four official observers (including the European Union): United States Department of State “Partner Nation List” <http://www.state.gov/t/isn/c37083.htm> .
97 For further information, see “Asia Security Fund” (2009) MFAT <http://www.mfat.govt. nz/> .
98 “Counter-Radicalisation” (2010) MFAT <http://www.mfat.govt.nz/> .
99 For further information, see “Pacific Security Fund” (2010) MFAT <http://www.mfat.govt. nz/> .
100 Alison Kelly, Permanent Representative of Ireland to the United Nations “United Nations General Assembly: Statement of the New Agenda Coalition at the First Committee, General Debate” (Statement delivered at the General Assembly, New York, 4 October 2011) at <http:// www.mfat.govt.nz/> .
101 GA Res 65/59, above n 31.
102 See “Country Paper: Islamic Republic of Iran” (2011) MFAT <http://www.mfat.govt.nz/> . New Zealand keeps open the channels of communication with Tehran mainly through the New Zealand/Iran Political and Economic Cooperation Commission (PECC), which offers an official framework for a political dialogue over, inter alia, the nuclear issue and regional security.
103 Scott Neuman “Korean Peninsula Tense After Shelling By North” National Public Radio (New Zealand, 23 November 2010) at <http://www.npr.org/2010/11/23/131530509/2-dead- after-north-korea-shells-south-korean-island> .
104 “North Korean torpedo sank Cheonan, South Korea military source claims” The Guardian (United Kingdom, 22 April 2010) at <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/apr/22/north- korea-cheonan-sinking-torpedo> .
105 Murray McCully, New Zealand Minister of Foreign Affairs “McCully condemns North Korean attack” (press release, 24 November 2010).
106 Murray McCully, New Zealand Minister of Foreign Affairs “NZ condemns Gaza flotilla incident” (press release, 1 June 2010).
107 Murray McCully, New Zealand Minister of Foreign Affairs “McCully welcomes Sir Geoffrey’s leadership of UN Panel” (press release, 3 August 2010).
108 Murray McCully, New Zealand Minister of Foreign Affairs “McCully to visit Middle East” (press release, 25 February 2010).
109 Murray McCully, New Zealand Minister of Foreign Affairs “Statement to the Opening of the 65th Session of the General Assembly” (General Assembly, New York, 24 September 2010) at <http://www.mfat.govt.nz/> .
110 Convention on Cluster Munitions (opened for signature 3 December 2008, entered into force 1 August 2010).
111 Murray McCully, New Zealand Minister of Foreign Affairs “Statement to the High- Level Meeting on Revitalising the Work of the Conference on Disarmament and Taking Forward Multilateral Disarmament Negotiations” (High-Level Meeting on Revitalising the Work of the Conference on Disarmament and Taking Forward Multilateral Disarmament Negotiations, New York, 24 September 2010) .
112 Statements made in 2010 may be found at MFAT “Ministry Statements and Speeches 2010” <http://www.mfat.govt.nz/> .
113 Security Council Resolution 1907 on Peace and Security in Africa SC Res 1907, S/RES/1907 (2009).
114 SC Res 1929, above n 62.