United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540 |
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Produced by the Monterey Institute's Center for Nonproliferation Studies
Updated July 2008 Introduction
Background
Primarily to counter non-state actor proliferation and secondarily to provide support for the PSI, Britain, the United States, and other countries urged the UN Security Council to adopt Resolution 1540. The PSI and Resolution 1540 are complementary in that they both bring together countries in partnership to fight against WMD trafficking. Both also have gone into effect without a formally negotiated treaty signed by all parties. On the eve of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference in May 2005, the United States and several other countries acknowledged that while the nonproliferation regime has succeeded in establishing strong global norms, it has not prevented WMD proliferation. One of the weaknesses of the existing regime is that it does not sufficiently cover the means of delivery of WMD and related materials nor does it adequately address activities by private entities. The goal of Resolution 1540 is to contribute to the international control of WMD and related goods. However, given the many uncertainties about the definitions of terms in the resolution and about its implementation, it is questionable how effective the resolution will be. Process of Adoption
The resolution took many months to pass through the different stages of negotiation before its adoption in April 2004. There were early versions of the draft that were discussed among permanent member nations of the Security Council. Council members and more than 20 non-members were allowed to comment on this draft at the open Council meeting held on April 22. However, none of the proposals put forth by non-Security Council members was taken into consideration when the final text was drafted. After the comments made during this open session, a few changes were made to the draft before the Council voted on it, during a closed-door session of Security Council members on April 28. The unanimous adoption of the resolution prompted varying reactions from member states. Many reacted to the
"legislative" nature of the resolution: it binds all member states
but was adopted by a Council that consists of only 15 members. For example,
India's representative stated: "We are concerned that the exercise
of legislative functions by the Council, combined with recourse to Chapter VII
mandates, could disrupt the balance of power between the General Assembly and
the Security Council, as enshrined in the Charter." However Spain's
representative noted that the resolution is a "part of the fight against
terrorism and a continuation of what began with resolution 1373 (2001), which
was adopted with the framework of Chapter VII. It would therefore be hard to
understand why one would not apply Chapter VII on this occasion." These
divergent comments reflect the fact that this is only the second time since 1945
that the Council has taken a sweeping, general decision by invoking Chapter VII
powers. The first resolution of this kind, Resolution 1373 addressing threats to
international peace and security caused by terrorist acts, was adopted in
response to the September 11 attacks and contains similar provisions placing
general obligations on states. |
Further Reading:
|
||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||
![]()
This material is
produced independently for NTI by the Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies and does not
necessarily reflect the opinions of and has not been independently verified by NTI or its directors, officers, employees, agents.
Copyright © 2008 by MIIS.