Abstract

The world experienced brutal consequences of nuclear weapons used for the first time in

1945. These weapons proved to be human annihilating weapons when the large scale

catastrophe was caused by it in cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Some states involved

in arms race to dominate each other for ideological, political and economic interests.

Thousands of nuclear weapons were manufactured and deployed during the cold war,

which decreased the sustainability of human beings on the planet. The nations of the

world felt to control and limit the nuclear weaponization. Different initiatives are taken in

controlling and disarmament of nuclear weapons. But the testing of nuclear weapons

were experienced during the whole cold war which had disastrous implications over the

whole ecosystem. CTBT is one of the effort to control and limit the nuclear weapons by

putting bans on testing of nuclear weapons. In this research paper The Comprehensive

Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) is critically analyzed. What are the prospects of its

enforcement and challenges to bring the treaty into force ? Is it a treaty based on ill

intentions of some powerful states or for the betterment of the mankind to avoid the sever

repercussions of tests of nuclear weapons? The treaty is evaluated from different

dimensions to reach at a result that how it contributes in the efforts of nuclear

disarmament and nuclear arms control ? This paper also shed light on the perspectives of

the states important for the entry into force of the treaty, who have not signed and

ratified the treaty. Different books, articles, research papers, reports are consulted to form

this piece of paper.

Introduction

The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty is the treaty which puts ban on nuclear testing by

anyone, anywhere. This treaty is considered to be an arms control treaty by imposing a ban

nuclear testing. The efforts to ban nuclear tests are as old as the first nuclear test which was

conducted in Alamogordo, New Mexico, United States, on July 1945. Jawaharlal Nehru the

premier of India advocated a “standstill agreement” on nuclear testing. “In 1963 PTBT ( Partial

Test Ban Treaty) was signed which banned nuclear testing in outer space, in atmosphere and

underwater, did not prohibit underground nuclear test”. But the treaty could not succeed in

diminishing the numbers of nuclear weapons1. U.S and Soviet Union increased nuclear weapons

by spending large sum of budget on developing these weapons.

In 1968 the nations of the world agreed upon a treaty known as NPT which laid the

foundations of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament regime. There was a discussion on

Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty but could not reached upon the formation of the treaty. Then

the CTBT was formally negotiated in a ‘Conference on Disarmament’ in Geneva in 1994 and 1996,

which was offered for signatures in 19962. 158 states voted for the treaty and out these states

India, Bhutan, and Libya voted against the treaty. Since that time 183 nations of the world have

signed the treaty and 166 have ratified the treaty3. The treaty has to see the ratification of eight

important states which are listed in annex 2.

1
History of CTBT: Summary, visit: https://www.ctbto.org/the-treaty/history-summary/
2
Ibid
3
Daryl Kimball, “ The Status of Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: Signatories and Ratifiers” available at
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/ctbtsig
Essentials of the CTBT

The Article 1 of the treaty states that, “ Each State Party undertakes not to carry out any

nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion, and to prohibit and prevent any such

nuclear explosion at any place under its jurisdiction or control”4. The treaty bans all kind of peaceful

nuclear explosions.

This treaty is considered to be the last hurdle in the way of developing nuclear weapons.

It attempts to be a barrier in the development of new nuclear weapons and in the improvement

of existing nuclear weapons. As soon as the treaty enters into force it will provide a legal binding

norm against nuclear testing5.

From 1945 till 1996 when the CTBT was negotiated, almost 2000 nuclear tests were

performed, in this “(1000+) by United States, (700+) by Soviet Union, (200+) by France, and (45)

by United Kingdom and China each”. India, Pakistan and DPRK have performed nuclear explosion

after 1996, the former two did in 1998 and the later in 2006 and 20096.

According to Article XIV of the treaty that the treaty will entry into force when the 44

states which are mentioned in the Annex 2 of the treaty sign and ratify the treaty7. These are

those states who had nuclear facilities before the negotiation of the treaty. The last state who

ratified the treaty was Indonesia who did so. There are eight states whose ratification is required

4
Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, visit at:
https://www.ctbto.org/fileadmin/content/treaty/treaty_text.pdf
5
What is CTBT? Available at: https://www.ctbto.org/the-treaty/article-xiv-conferences/2011/afc11-information-
for-media-and-press/what-is-the-ctbt/
6
Ibid
7
Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, visit at:
https://www.ctbto.org/fileadmin/content/treaty/treaty_text.pdf
that include US, China, Egypt, Israel, Iran, India, Pakistan, and North Korea. Out of these India,

Pakistan and North Korea have even not signed the treaty8.

Preparatory Commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organization

(CTBTO) works for making the treaty into force. It has a verification regime which monitors

compliance to the treaty. The CTBT verification regime consist of “International Monitoring

System (IMS), International Data Center (IDC) and On Site Inspections (OSI)”. These systems work

for detecting nuclear explosions and members are from 183 states have signed the treaty. CTBT

verification regime detected the 2006 and 2009 nuclear test made by DPRK9.

Questions and Challenges to the treaty

The basic problem is there with definition given by the CTBT for nuclear tests. States

cannot be prevented by CTBT from building basic nuclear weapons because for such a basic

weapons, testing is not necessary10. States can build nuclear weapons which may be utilized

directly in a war which does not need to be tested in before using them against an adversary. For

example “ Little boy” was never tested before.

8
CTBT: Annex 2 States, visit to: https://2009-2017.state.gov/t/avc/rls/159264.htm
9
What is the CTBT verification regime, visit: https://www.ctbto.org/the-treaty/article-xiv-conferences/2011/afc11-
information-for-media-and-press/what-is-the-ctbt/
10
Thomas Schober and others, “ Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: Questions and Challenges”, Arms Control ( Nov 7,
2012) available at: https://www.heritage.org/arms-control/report/the-comprehensive-test-ban-treaty-questions-
and-challenges
 Weapons that does not carry “thermonuclear boosting elements”, are capable of

providing yield in the range of 15 to 50 kilotons. These weapons can prove to be catastrophic and

must be concerned as in the ambit of CTBT concerns11.

CTBT ( Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty) has not provided with the framework that what

should be done with state if there is any non-compliance, it has only established with

International Monitoring System (IMS)12.

CTBT has failed to prevent the countries like Russia and China form developing “ low yield,

clean, penetrating and electromagnetic-pulse (EMP) nuclear weapons” which has increased their

nuclear reliability. The credibility of the weapons of other nations has been dropped because

CTBT does not care about these developments13.

It is very difficult that treaty come into force because of the U.S who was a strong

supporter of the non-proliferations regime and mover of the treaty has not yet ratified the treaty

as senate of the U.S did not approve it. So how probable it is that other states sign and ratify the

treaty14?

Voting system is also a problem when thirty out of fifty one “members states of the

executive council” does not agree to authorize an “On Site Inspection” it will not be conducted15.

11
Ibid
12
Ibid
13
Ibid
14
Moonis Ahmar, “ The Introduction”, in Moonis Ahmar, The CTBT Controversy: Different Perceptions in South Asia,
( Department of International Relations University of Karachi, Karachi Pakistan 2000)
15
Thomas Schober and others, “ Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: Questions and Challenges”
There can involve the politics of big powers to safeguard their interests and their allies interests.

And on site inspection can not be conducted until the treaty does not come into force.

Some states are also concerned about the time period of the treaty which is indefinite.

These states are not ready to ratify a treaty which is unlimited in nature that may have adverse

effects on their maintenance of deterrence of nuclear weapons which can challenge the security

of those states.

Capabilities of detections are not that much improved which can detect the “small low

yield test” which may be helpful in modernization of nuclear weapons. States can carry nuclear

tests in special type of container which makes it undetectable for the CTBT verification regime16.

The 183 members states that have signed and 157 that have ratified the treaty, in these

most of them are not relevant to matters about nuclear weapons. “The real concern lies with the

11 states”. The P5 states ( U.S, The U.K, France, Russia and China), Pakistan, India, Israel, North

Korea and the two states who are takes interests in development of nuclear weapons Syria and

Iran17.

The treaty does not prohibit “multiplying of nuclear weapons, improving nuclear

technology, improving missile technology, transferring nuclear technology, making delivery

systems”18which contributes in modernization of nuclear weapons.

16
Kathleen C Bailey, “ The CTBT remains fatally flawed” visit at:
https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2016/02/24/the_ctbt_remains_fatally_flawed_109073.html
17
Thomas Schober and others, “ Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: Questions and Challenges”
18
Moonis Ahmar, “ The Introduction"
Prospects of Enforcement of the treaty

The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty is about to be an international norm that

prohibits nuclear testing. Even states like India who had voted against the treaty’s resolution is

abiding by it. U.S can play a big role in bringing the entry into force. After ratification of U.S China

is likely to follow suit as it expressed many a times. U.S can also put pressure on Israel and Egypt

which are close allies of the U.S19. And the world can see a nuclear free Middle East.

In the case of India and Pakistan, Indian officials have expressed that they do not want to

be from those last states who sign and ratify the treaty. Pakistan has officially made clear that

they are going to sign and ratify the treaty if India signs ratifies the treaty. And the case of North

Korea can be adjusted with when relationships between U.S and North Korea get normalized20.

States should be made sure that by signing and ratification of the treaty, it does not mean

that they are going to abandon their nuclear weapons or policy of deterrence which can pose

threats to their security. They are not going to functionalize like a non-nuclear states but has to

stop nuclear explosions.

Those non-annex 2 states who are yet to ratify the treaty: making them part of the treaty

will strengthen the global norm against nuclear testing, which can be helpful in pressurizing the

eight annex 2 states21.

19
Jeffrey Lewis, “ THE CTBT: PROSPECTS FOR ENTRY INTO FORCE” OCCASIONAL PAPER 4 ( 2010) visit at:
http://www.vertic.org/media/assets/Publications/CTBT%20OP4.pdf
20
Ibid
21
“ Achieving the Entry into Force of the Comprehensive-Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty”, Vienna Center for
Disarmament and Non-Proliferation; Workshop Report ( 10 May 2017) Web Link: https://www.vie-mission.emb-
japan.go.jp/CTBT%2010%20May%20Report%20Final%20(3).pdf
 Educating and training common people in promoting non-proliferation and disarmament

specifically in the eight annex 2 states can help in bringing treaty into force. This general public

can play a role in promotion of the treaty’s entry into force by pressurizing the policies of the

governments. Engagement of youth in this respect is crucial and important 22.

By taking the issues into considerations that are hindering and preventing the states from

the treaty can be helpful. It is a difficult task to address all problems and challenges but is

necessary for bringing the treaty into force.

Critical analysis

In the very first article of the treaty it is said that every state that become part of the

treaty “will not carry nuclear test explosion or any other nuclear explosion and prohibition and

prevention of any such explosion at any place under its jurisdiction or control”. It should be

clarified over here that the phrase “any other explosion” does not mean that the utilization of

nuclear weapons is also prevented. This only means prohibition of peaceful nuclear explosions23.

The treaty does not intend to prohibit the real explosions means explosions or bombing the

nuclear weapons for strategic or tactical uses.

The CTBT ( Comprehension test ban treaty) is not only the treaty of putting ban on nuclear

explosions but symptomatic of the mindset of the West. It is necessary to understand the

mindset of the West before attempting to know the nature and scope of the comprehension test

22
Ibid
23
Ahmer Bilal Soofi, “Dimensions of CTBT” in Moonis Ahmar (ed.), THE CTBT CONTROVERSY: DIFFERENT
PERCEPTIONS IN SOUTH ASIA, (Karachi; Department of International Relations University of Karachi, Karachi
Pakistan, 2000).
ban treaty24. The West has always tried to maintain their status quo over the less developed and

third world nations. The treaties and steps of non-proliferation have always benefitted the

nations that have developed the nuclear weapons before the 1968 means Nuclear Weapon State

(NWS).

The betrayal of these Nuclear Weapon States can be observed in the form of Nuclear Non-

Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that after 19 years of its implementation in 1987 according to an

estimate that the five NPT states’ arsenal of nuclear weapons at 68,000: United States 24,000;

Russian Federation 43,000; United Kingdom 300; France 420; and China 42025.

In terms of dollars, 320 billion dollars were spent on defense in a year and total of about

13 trillion dollars to win the cold war. The point is that nearly 4 trillion dollars were spent on

developing and maintaining nuclear arsenal. It shows that how sincere United States is in

denuclearizing itself26.

Article six of the NPT says, “each of the parties of 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

under strict and effective international control”27. Instead of having controlling the arms race and

going for complete disarmament which the treaty oblige over them, these states increased the

numbers and lethality of their nuclear weapons.

24
Tarik Jan, “ CTBT: A TOOL FOR AMERICAN DOMINATION” in Moonis Ahmar (ed.), THE CTBT CONTROVERSY:
DIFFERENT PERCEPTIONS IN SOUTH ASIA.
25
Ibid
26
Ibid
27
Ibid
 In signing and ratifying treaties of nuclear non-proliferation United States has always

heeded to it’s own interests rather than thinking for the protection of the world in terms of non-

proliferation. This can be judged how U.S has tried to maintain its status quo in the beginning of

the formation of nuclear non-proliferation regime undermining the safety and security of the

whole world, it wanted monopoly over the nuclear weapons.

The U.S is not sincere in saving the world from the hazard of nuclear as it always professes

to be. E.g. the Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT) of 1963 came to an end as an compromise draft,

because the U.S did not want a comprehensive test ban and wanted to have open the option of

underground testing28. The U.S have always left an option for its supremacy and hegemonic

intentions in every treaty.

The states who consider themselves as the custodians of the world security have not

ratified the treaty, considering it a threat to their nuclear arsenal that they might lag behind in

nuclear technology from rest of the countries. So, how possible it is that the state like U.S has not

ratified the treaty yet, India and Pakistan who are much backward in terms of nuclear technology

can ratify the treaty.

On the other hand states who ratified the treaty are performing nuclear tests which are

increasing the lethality and sophistication of their nuclear weapons. These tests are performed

in closed containers which are undetectable by the CTBTO. When there is a process of

sophistication of nuclear weapons by the technological advanced states why should the states

28
Ibid
who are not able to match those technologically advanced states in maintaining the deterrence

should sign and ratify the treaty.

Treaties like PTBT, NPT and CTBT are actually the traits of P5 states to legitimize their

nuclear weapons, to maintain status quo of nuclear weapons in the form forcing the rest of the

world toward non-proliferation. These weapons provide them with an edge by which they can

exploit any nation for their interests.

Conclusion

After analyzing the treaty one can conclude that it is very difficult that the treaty may

enter into force. As it was seeming at the tenure of Barak Obama that U.S is likely to ratify the

treaty but with the arrival of Trump at the White House has reduced the possibility of ratification

as he is intended to withdraw U.S from some other important treaties like INF . U.S ratification

might help in bringing the treaty into force because China has many time expressed that they are

going to ratify the treaty if U.S does so.

The states have to take proper steps for securing the world from the hazards of nuclear

weapons. No state should be complacent with its nuclear weapons safety and security. Serious

initiatives should be taken for safety and security of the existing stockpiles of nuclear weapons.

Treaties should be adopted which are not devised to serve the interests of specific powerful

countries. If these nations (P5) are really sincere in denuclearization efforts, they should start

implementing the article six of the NPT where these states accept that they would go eventually

for complete disarmament.