Advertisement

The Proliferation Security Initiative: A Tentative Assessment

  • Gabriella Venturini
Chapter

Abstract

The PSI was launched by the United States in 2003 as a programme aimed at interdicting the transfer or transport of WMD, their delivery systems and related materials to and from States and non-State actors of proliferation concern. Being a voluntary activity and not an international organization, its structure is not institutionalized. Although more than 100 countries have endorsed the PSI, some important States are absent especially in the Asian region and in the Arabic peninsula. The PSI activities are based on the Principles of Interdiction, which do not conflict with existing international law, notably the freedom of the high seas and the principle of flag State consent. Accordingly, a number of ship-boarding agreements have been reached and amendments to the SUA Convention have been adopted to legitimize the interdiction of vessels involved in WMD smuggling. Since 2003 PSI cooperation has gradually contributed to the development of participating States’ critical capabilities and practices in relation to the interdiction of WMD and related materials, although a proper evaluation of the PSI’s effectiveness is difficult to make due to its lack of transparency. In the future, the Initiative would benefit from a greater involvement of civilian law enforcement authorities for the interdiction of dual-use goods, as well as from a geographical expansion of its scope.

Keywords

Beijing convention on the suppression of unlawful acts relating to international civil aviation Delivery systems Interdiction Ship-boarding agreements for the suppression of unlawful acts against the safety of maritime navigation (SUA Convention) Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) 

References

  1. Abeyratne R (2011) The Beijing Convention of 2010 on the suppression of unlawful acts relating to international civil aviation—an interpretative study. J Trans Secur 4(2):131–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahlström C (2005) The proliferation security initiative: international law aspects of the statement of interdiction principles, SIPRI yearbook (2005) Nonproliferation, arms control, disarmament. Oxford University Press, Oxford-New York, pp 741–767Google Scholar
  3. Allen C (2007) Maritime counter proliferation operations and the rule of law. Praeger Security International, Westport, pp 143–178Google Scholar
  4. Becker MA (2005) The shifting public order of the oceans: freedom of navigation and the interdiction of ships at sea. Harvard Int Law J 46:131–230Google Scholar
  5. Bocheński S (2007) Quart J. Winter 2007:62–81Google Scholar
  6. Byers M (2004) Policing the high seas: the proliferation security initiative. AJIL 98:526–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Byers M (2007) Proliferation security initiative. In: Wolfrum R (ed), Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law, 10 vols. Oxford University Press. http://opil.ouplaw.com/view/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e1209?prd=EPIL. Accessed June 2015
  8. Doolin JA (2006) The proliferation security initiative: cornerstone of a new international norm. Naval War College Rev 59(2):29–57Google Scholar
  9. Dunne A (2013) The Proliferation Security Initiative. Legal Considerations and Operational Realities, SIPRI Policy Paper No. 36, http://books.sipri.org/product_info?c_product_id=459
  10. Durkalec J (2010) The Proliferation Security Initiative: Evolution and Future Prospects, EU Non-Proliferation Consortium, Non-Proliferation Papers No. 16, http://www.sipri.org/research/disarmament/eu-consortium/publications/nonproliferation-paper-16
  11. Garvey JI (2005) The international institutional imperative for countering the spread of weapons of mass destruction: assessing the proliferation security initiative. J Confl Secur Law 10:125–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Garvey JI (2013) Counter proliferation of nuclear weapons: a new grand bargain. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Guilfoyle D (2009) Shipping interdiction and the law of the sea. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 232–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heintschel von Heinegg W (2006) The proliferation security initiative: security versus freedom of navigation? In: Sparks TMcK, Sulmasy GM (eds), International law challenges: homeland security and combating terrorism. International law studies, vol 81, pp 55–76Google Scholar
  15. Heintschel von Heinegg W (2010) Maritime interception/interdiction operations. In: Gill TD, Fleck D (eds) The handbook of the international law of military operations. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 375–393Google Scholar
  16. Heupel M (2007) The Proliferation Security Initiative: Advancing Commitment and Capacity for WMD Interdictions, Disarmament Forum, Central Asia at the Crossroads at: http://www.unidir.org/pdf/articles/pdf-art2688.pdf
  17. Holmes GR, Winner AC (2009) The proliferation security initiative. In: Busch NE, Joyner DH (eds) Combating weapons of mass destruction, the future of international nonproliferation policy. University of Georgia Press, Athens, pp 139–155Google Scholar
  18. Huang J (2009) Aviation safety through the rule of law: ICAO’s mechanisms and practices. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 112–155Google Scholar
  19. Joyner DH (2009) International law and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Oxford University Press, Oxford-New York, pp 301–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kaliadine A (2005) Russia in the PSI: The Modalities of Russian Participation in the Proliferation Security Initiative, WMDC Paper No. 29, The Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission, Stockholm, at: http://www.un.org/disarmament/education/wmdcommission/files/ No29.pdf
  21. Kieserman B (2006) Preventing & defeating terrorism at sea: practical considerations for implementation of the draft protocol to the convention for the suppression of unlawful acts against the safety of maritime navigation (SUA). In: Nordquist MH, Moore JN, Fu K-C (eds) Recent developments in the law of the sea and China. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden/Boston, pp 425–464Google Scholar
  22. Klein N (2012) Maritime security and the law of the sea. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 147–210Google Scholar
  23. Lehrman TD (2004) Enhancing the proliferation security initiative: the case for a decentralized nonproliferation architecture. Virginia J Int Law 45:223–276Google Scholar
  24. Logan SE (2005) The proliferation security initiative: navigating the legal challenge. J Trans Law Policy 14:253–274Google Scholar
  25. Malisch M, Prill F (2007) The proliferation security initiative and the 2005 protocol to the SUA convention. ZaöRV 67:229–240Google Scholar
  26. Nickel R (2010) Data mining and “renegade” aircrafts: the states as agents of a global militant security governance network – the German example. Emory Int Law Rev 24:619–651Google Scholar
  27. Perry TC (2006) Blurring the ocean zones: the effect of the proliferation security initiative on the customary international law of the sea. Ocean Dev Int Law 37:33–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Persbo A, Davis I (2004) Sailing into Uncharted Waters? The Proliferation Security Initiative and the Law of the Sea, Basic Research Report, The British American Information Council, http://www.basicint.org/sites/default/files/basic_psi_report_final_all.pdf
  29. Roach JA (2006) Proliferation security initiative (PSI)—countering proliferation by sea. In: Nordquist MH, Moore JN, Fu K-c (eds), Recent developments in the law of the sea and China. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden/Boston, pp 351–424Google Scholar
  30. Ronzitti N (2008) The proliferation security initiative and international law. In: Fischer-Lescano A, Gasser H-P, Marauhn T, Ronzitti N (eds), Frieden in Freiheit—peace in liberty—paix en liberté. Festschrift für Michael Bothe zum 70. Geburtstag. Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft. Baden-Baden, pp 269–284Google Scholar
  31. Song Y-H (2007) The U.S.-led proliferation security initiative and UNCLOS: legality, implementation and an assessment. Ocean Dev Int Law 38:101–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Spadi F (2006) Bolstering the proliferation security initiative at sea: a comparative analysis of ship-boarding as a bilateral and multilateral implementing mechanism. Nordic J Int Law 75:249–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Thomas TV (2009) The proliferation security initiative: towards relegation of navigational freedoms in UNCLOS? An Indian perspective. Chinese J Int Law 8(3):657–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tuerk H (2008) Combating terrorism at sea—the suppression of unlawful acts against the safety of maritime navigation. Univ Miami Int Comp Law Rev 15:337–367Google Scholar
  35. Valencia MJ (2006) Is the PSI really the cornerstone of a new international norm? Naval War College Rev 59(2):123–130Google Scholar
  36. Winner A (2005) The proliferation security initiative: the new face of interdiction. The Wash Quart 28:129–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Via Fratelli CerviMilano DueSegrateItaly

Personalised recommendations