Ensuring Energy Security through Expanded Access to Nuclear Technology for Peaceful Uses and the Challenge of a Nuclear Taboo



Abstract Views
1374

Downloads
601

Citations

Share

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Submitted Mar 3, 2023
Published Mar 29, 2023
10.24018/ejpolitics.2023.2.2.76

Abstract viewed = 1374 times

Table of Contents

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

This paper seeks to explore the nexus between expanded access to nuclear technology and science for peaceful uses and sustainable development, on the one hand, and how a nuclear stigma impacts global endeavors to achieve sustainable development goals, on the other. Although nuclear technology and techniques’ safe, secure, and sustainable application is directly relevant to the 9 SDGs, this paper highlights energy security. It argues that expanded access to nuclear technology and modern science is quintessential to ensure SDGs; specifically, by informing pragmatic energy transition policy. A nuclear taboo (a public aversion to anything nuclear), as symbolized in an inherent normative contestation within the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of nuclear weapons (hereinafter the NPT), enduring background knowledge, negative nuclear images, and public aversions to nuclear power, poses a formidable challenge to expanded access to nuclear technology. Consequently, the paper suggests, inter alia, timely management of normative contestations (through a teleological interpretation of Art. IV of the NPT), increasing awareness creation campaigns, effective and timely risk communication system, changing narratives at the grassroots level, ensuring greater transparency, and trust building measures, and enhancing the culture of nuclear safety and security.

Keywords: nuclear taboo norm contestation peaceful uses of nuclear energy SDGS

References

  1. Abdel-Wahab, M., Zubizarreta, E., Polo, A., & Meghzifene, A. (2017). Improving quality and access to radiation therapy—An IAEA perspective. Seminars in Radiation Oncology, 27(2), 109–117.
     Google Scholar
  2. Ayoo, C. (2020). Towards energy security for the twenty-first century. IntechOpen EBooks. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.90872.
     Google Scholar
  3. Carmen, W. and Müller, H. (2018). Not lost in contestation: How norm entrepreneurs frame norm development in the nuclear non-proliferation regime. Contemporary Security Policy, 1–26.
     Google Scholar
  4. Considine, L. (2021). The importance of narrative in nuclear policymaking: a study of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Papers, 72, 1–12.
     Google Scholar
  5. Deitelhoff, N. (2020). What is in a name? contestations and backlash against international norms and institutions. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 22 (4), 715–727.
     Google Scholar
  6. Diana, P., Francesco, G. and Pilar, O. (2020). Nuclear medicine: a global perspective. Clinical and Translational Imaging, 8, 51–53.
     Google Scholar
  7. Durkheim, E. (1947 [1915]). The elementary forms of the religious life: a study in religious. London: George Allen and Unwin.
     Google Scholar
  8. Englund, W. (2021). An energy crisis is gripping the world, with potentially grave consequences. Washington, October 9.
     Google Scholar
  9. European Commission. (2021). Technical assessment of nuclear energy with respect to the ‘do no significant harm’ criteria of the regulation (EU) 2020/852(Taxonomy regulation). Special, Brussels: European Atomic Energy Community.
     Google Scholar
  10. European Union. (2021). European citizens’ knowledge and attitudes towards science and technology. Special Report, Brussels.
     Google Scholar
  11. Fennimore, M. (1996). Norms, culture, and world Politics: Insights from sociology’s institutionalism. International Organization, 50 (2), 325–347.
     Google Scholar
  12. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2021). Five ways nuclear technology is improving agriculture and food security. March 03. Accessed October 25, 2021. https://www.fao.org/fao-stories/article/en/c/1390726/.
     Google Scholar
  13. Fuhrmann, M. (2009). Spreading temptation: proliferation and peaceful nuclear cooperation agreements. International Security, 34 (1), 7–41.
     Google Scholar
  14. Geoffrey, B., Meredith A. B., David S., and David S. (2015). Carbon-free energy development and the role of small modular reactors: A review and decision framework for deployment in developing countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 43, 83–94.
     Google Scholar
  15. Herzog, P., and Jonathon, B. (2020). Public opinion on nuclear energy and nuclear weapons: The attitudinal. Energy Research and Social Science, 68, 1–11.
     Google Scholar
  16. IAEA. (2021). Applicability of design safety requirements to Small Modular Reactor technologies intended for near-term deployment. Special, Vienna: IAEA.
     Google Scholar
  17. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2021). Climate Change. Special, Working Group I of the United Nations.
     Google Scholar
  18. International Atomic Energy Agency. (2020). World Food Day 2020: IAEA & FAO’s Joint Work Benefits Farmers and Increases Food Security Worldwide. Vienna, October 16. Accessed July 22, 2021. https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/world-food-day-2020-iaea-faos-joint-work-benefits-farmers-and-increases-food-security-worldwide.
     Google Scholar
  19. International Atomic Energy Agency. (2021). Nuclear energy for a net zero world. Special Report, Vienna: IAEA.
     Google Scholar
  20. International Atomic Energy Agency. 2021. Nuclear science and technology for climate adaptation and resilience. A reference document, Vienna: IAEA. Agency, International Atomic Energy. 1957. The Statute (as amended). Vienna, July 29.
     Google Scholar
  21. International Energy Agency (IEA). (2021). Net zero by 2050: A roadmap for a global energy sector. Annual, IEA.
     Google Scholar
  22. International Energy Agency. (2019). International Energy Outlook 2019. Annual, IEA.
     Google Scholar
  23. International Agency for Atomic Energy. (1953). December 8. Accessed September 13, 2021. https://www.iaea.org/about/history/atoms-for-peace-speech.
     Google Scholar
  24. Jackson, I. 2009. Nuclear energy and proliferation risks: Myths and realities in the Persian Gulf. International Affairs, 85 (6), 1157–1172.
     Google Scholar
  25. Kim, W. (2018). Comparative analysis of public attitudes toward nuclear power energy across 27 European Countries by applying the multilevel model. Sustainability 10 (5), 1–21.
     Google Scholar
  26. Kitada, A. (2016). Public opinion changes after the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident to nuclear power generation as seen in continuous polls over the past 30 years. Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology, 1–16.
     Google Scholar
  27. Kraft, M., & Clary, B. B. (1991). Citizen Participation and the Nimby Syndrome: Public Response to Radioactive Waste Disposal. The Western Political Quarterly, 44(2), 299–328.
     Google Scholar
  28. Krige, John. (2006). Atoms for peace, scientific internationalism, and scientific intelligence. Osiris 21(1), 161–181.
     Google Scholar
  29. Kroenig, M. (2009). Importing the bomb: sensitive nuclear assistance and nuclear proliferation. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 53 (2), 161–180.
     Google Scholar
  30. Kuznetsov,V., Ioannis N. K. (2012). Small Modular Reactors for enhancing energy security in developing countries. Sustainability, 4, 1806–1832.
     Google Scholar
  31. Li, Y. and Nan, W. (2014). Media coverage and government policy of nuclear power in the People’s Republic of China. Progress in Nuclear Energy,77, 214–223.
     Google Scholar
  32. Linklater, A. (2018). Symbols and world politics: towards a long-term perspective on historical trends and contemporary challenges. European Journal of International Relations, 00 (0),1–24.
     Google Scholar
  33. Martin, S. and Kornprobst, M. (2016). Introduction: Background ideas in international relations. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 18 (2), 1–9.
     Google Scholar
  34. Michal, S. and Onderco, M. (2021). German views on US nuclear weapons in Europe: public and elite perspectives. European Security 30 (4), 630–648.
     Google Scholar
  35. Modigliani, A. and William A. G. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95 (1), 1–37.
     Google Scholar
  36. Nations, United. (2015). 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Special, New York: United Nations Library.
     Google Scholar
  37. NPT RevCon. (2010). 2010 Review of Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of nuclear weapons. Final Document Vol. I. New York: United Nations, May
     Google Scholar
  38. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2010. Public attitudes to nuclear power. Occasional, OECD.
     Google Scholar
  39. Paul W. and Markandya, A. (2007). Electricity generation and health. Lancet, 370, 379–990.
     Google Scholar
  40. Rhodes, R. (2018). Why nuclear power must be part of the energy solution. Yale School of the Environment, July 19. Accessed August 15, 2021. https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-nuclear-power-must-be-part-of-the-energy-solution-environmentalists-climate.
     Google Scholar
  41. Rucht, Dieter. (1990). Campaigns, skirmishes, and battles: anti-nuclear movements in the USA, France, and West Germany. Industrial Crisis Quarterly, 4 (3), 193–22.
     Google Scholar
  42. Samantha, Ö., Ralph S., and Nicolai, K. (2007). Contribution of renewables to energy security. IEA, April.
     Google Scholar
  43. Sandholtze, W. (2008). Dynamics of international norm change: rules against wartime plunder. European Journal of International Relations 14 (1), 101–131.
     Google Scholar
  44. Schillinger, H. and Holger, N. (2016). Contestation ‘all the way down’? The grammar of contestation in norm research. Review of International Studies, 43 (1), 29–49.
     Google Scholar
  45. Sokova(eds), Ingrid Kristen and Elena. (2021). VCDNP task force on peaceful uses of nuclear science and technology: reports and recommendations. Task Force Report, Vienna: Vienna Centre for Disarmament and Non-proliferation.
     Google Scholar
  46. Suzuki, T. (2019). Nuclear energy policy after the Fukushima nuclear accident: an analysis of “polarized debate” in Japan. Energy Policy 1–16.
     Google Scholar
  47. Tanaka, Y. (2004). Major psychological factors determining public acceptance of the siting of nuclear facilities. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(6), 1147–1165.
     Google Scholar
  48. Tannenwald, N. (2013). Justice and fairness in nuclear non-proliferation regime. Ethics and International Affairs, 27 (3), 299–317.
     Google Scholar
  49. The Commission of the European Community. (2000). Towards a European strategy for the security of energy supply. Green Paper. Brussels: EU Commission, November 29.
     Google Scholar
  50. United Nations Human Rights Council. (2020). Draft convention on the right to development. Advance Edited Version. Geneva, January 28.
     Google Scholar
  51. United Nations. (1986). United Nations declaration on the right to development. Resolution 41/128. New York: United Nations, December
     Google Scholar
  52. Weart, R. (1991). Images of nuclear energy: why people feel the way they do. IAEA Bulletin 3, 30–37.
     Google Scholar
  53. Weiss, L. (2003). Atoms for peace. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 59 (6), 34–44.
     Google Scholar
  54. Welsh, I (1993). The NIMBY Syndrome: its significance in the history of the nuclear debate in Britain. The British Journal for the History of Science. 36 (1), 15–32.
     Google Scholar
  55. Wettengel, J. (2020). Germany’s dependence on imported fossil fuels. July 19. Accessed October 25, 2021. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/germanys-dependence-imported-fossil-fuels.
     Google Scholar
  56. World Health Organization (WHO). (2021). Cancer. Geneva, September 21. Accessed October 15, 2021. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/cancer.
     Google Scholar
  57. World Health Organization. (2018). The state of health in the WHO African region. Annual, WHO.
     Google Scholar
  58. Xinjun, Z. (2006). The riddle of inalienable right in Article IV of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of nuclear weapons: intentional ambiguity. Chinese Journal of International Law, 5 (3), 647–662.
     Google Scholar
  59. Yamide Dagnet et al. (2021). Toward more effective implementation of the Paris Agreement: Learning from the 30 years of experience. Policy Paper. World Resource Institute, October.
     Google Scholar
  60. Yergin, D. (2006). Ensuring energy security. Foreign Affairs 85 (2), 69–82.
     Google Scholar
  61. Yergin, D. (2020). The New Map: Energy, Climate, and the Clash of Nations. Penguin UK.
     Google Scholar