1. Presented to the Secretary of State for the Environment on 26 January 1978, [hereinafter cited as the Parker Report]. The Report is in vol. 1, and the Index to the Report is in vol. 2. VoL 3 contains lists of documents and witnesses.

2. The proposed plant is described in the Report as THORP (Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant) and is referred to as such in this paper.

3. Breach, I., Windscale fallout: A primer for the nuclear age. (Penguin Books 1978).Google Scholar

4. Supra n. 1, para. 2.1.

5. Peter Shore, Secretary of State for the Environment, 946 HC Deb. cols. 1537, 1539 (22 March 1978).

6. Breach, supra n. 3, at p. 1.Google Scholar

7. See, Sweet, , “The Opposition to nuclear power in Europe”, 33 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (12 1977) p. 41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8. Parker Report, para. 6.1.

9. See, Epstein, W., The last chance (1976) ch. 1.Google Scholar

10. E.g., the generation of electricity: medical uses.

11. E.g., the manufacture of bombs and warheads.

12. Report of the Acheson – Lilienthal Committee on the International Control of Atomic Energy 1946, quoted in Conroy, C., What choice windscale? (1978) p. 55.Google Scholar

13. Epstein supra n. 9, at p. 7. This dual view of nuclear energy is echoed in the Parker Report supra n. 1, para. 2.1., but is expressed in far less apprehensive terms. See also, Power, P., “The Carter Anti-Plutonium Policy”, 7 Energy policy (no. 3 – 1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar where a distinction is drawn between the “seamless web” interpretation of nuclear energy which views its military and civil applications as part of an integrated whole, and the “bifurcated” interpretation of which the Parker Report and the United Kingdom government would appear to favour.

14. Goldschmidt, B. and Kratzei, M., Peaceful nuclear relations: A study of the creation and erosion of confidence (1978).Google Scholar The study was undertaken under the auspices of the Internattional Consultative Group on Nuclear Energy, a body sponsored jointly by The Rockefeller Foundation (New York) and the Royal Institute of International Affairs (London).

15. Art. II.

16. Goldschmidt, and Kratzer, supra n. 14, at p. 6.Google Scholar

17. Referred to hereafter as the NPT. It is discussed below.

18. Factors contributing to this loss of confidence include: the Indian nuclear explosion of 1974; US offers of nuclear assistance to Egypt and Israel in the same year; recognition of the threat of seizure (of plutonium) by terrorists; the growing public scepticism of nuclear power spurred on by the environmental movement; doubts about the effectiveness of safeguards; the crumbling of US dominance as a supplier of nuclear technology simultaneously with sales of nuclear equipment on a growing scale to developing countries; see Goldschmidt and Kratzer supra n. 14 at pp. 2 and 52 and the US Non-Proliferation Act 1978.

19. Goldschmidt, and Kratzer, supra n. 14, at p. 2.Google Scholar

20. There is abundant literature on the topic; two recent accounts which are particularly helpful for the non-technical reader are: Nuclear power issues and choices: Report of the nuclear energy policy study group, (1977) pp. 389–405Google Scholar [hereinafter cited as the Ford-Mitre Report, after the sponsor, The Ford Foundation, and the administering body, the Mitre Corporation]; The Rockefeller Foundation, International co-operation on breeder reactors, (1978) ch. 11.Google Scholar

21. International co-operation on breeder reactors supra n. 20 at pp. 3–20.Google Scholar

22. In approximately 90 per cent of all reactors, present and planned, the uranium has to undeigo a process of enrichment before it can be used as fuel: an exception is the Canadian Candu reactor system which operates on natural uranium. Reactor grade uranium is only slightly enriched: further enrichment is necessary to convert the uranium into use for weapons purposes. See Ford-Mitre Report supra n. 20, at 365.Google Scholar

23. Parker Report supra n. 1, at para. 2.22.

24. International co-operation on breeder reactors supra n. 20, at pp. 4–20, 4–21.Google Scholar It has been estimated that by 1983, about 30 countries will be capable of producing around 75,000 kilograms of plutonium annually. Greenwood, , Feiveson, and Taylor, , Nuclear proliferation: Motivations, capabilities, and strategies for control (1977) p. 141.Google Scholar

25. Supra n. 20, at pp. 321–22.

26. See Fishlock, , “Why the French are setting the pace”, Financial Times, (25 08 1978).Google Scholar

27. See Table 2.1: Non-military Reprocessing Facilities, in International arrangements for nuclear fuel reprocessing, (1977) pp. 19–22Google Scholar, A. Chayes and W. Bennet Lewis, eds.

28. I.e., the facility is subject to neither NPT or non-NPT safeguards. See Table 3 in the public information booklet published by the IAEA, Non-Proliferation and International Safeguards, (1978) p. 6.Google Scholar

29. Estimates of savings vary: see, OECD, Reprocessing of Spent Nuclear Fuels in OECD Countries (1977)Google Scholar which gives the figue of 16 per cent for existing types of reactor: compare, Greenwood, in International arrangements for nuclear fuel reprocessing supra n. 27, at p. 24Google Scholar (20 to 30 per cent). In the Parker Report the figures are 30 to 40 per cent for existing types of reactor and 60 per cent for FBRs; para. 8.35.

30. OECD Report supra n. 29, at p. 32.Google Scholar

31. Supra n. 1, paras. 2.23; 2.26; 8.30.

32. Ibid., paras. 2.30; 8.9.

33. Ibid., para. 8.24.

34. Supra n. 20, at pp. 320–21.

35. The text is reproduced in 71 AJIL (1977) pp. 775–78.Google Scholar

36. Ibid., at p. 776.

37. Ibid., at pp. 775–76, thus echoing the Ford-Mitre Report supra n. 20, at p. 333.Google Scholar

37a. Parker Report supra n. 1, paras. 5.1 (points 6 and 7); 8.54; 9.19; 17.4. The terms of the proposed overseas reprocessing contracts are considered below.

38. Ford-Mitre Report supra n. 20, at p. 322.Google Scholar

39. Greenwoord, supra n. 29, at p. 26.Google Scholar

40. A full account of the grounds of their opposition is found in Conroy, , What choice windscale?: The issues of reprocessing. Published jointly by the Friends of the Earth and the Conservation Society, (1978).Google Scholar

41. Parker Report supra n. 1, para. 6.2.

42. As a long-established nuclear weapons state, the UK has been separating plutonium from spent fuel for more than 25 years. Some 10 tonnes of plutonium is presently in storage, and this figure is estimated to increase by another 45 tonnes by the year 2000. Ibid., para. 2.25.

43. Although some of the “terrorist” scenarios involving blackmail of states with nuclear devices are more akin to a James Bond story, the possibility of ‘proxy’ theft by terrorists acting for a state is by no means far fetched; see generally, Epstein supra n. 9, ch. 19.

44. Parker Report supra n. 1, para. 6.3.

45. Ibid., para. 6.2.

46. The Inspector cites figures taken from Wohlstetter, “Spreading the Bomb Without Quite Breaking the Rules” in 25 Foreign Policy (Winter 1976–1977) p. 92Google Scholar; Lovins, , Soft energy paths: Toward a durable peace (London 1977).Google Scholar

47. Parker Report supra n. 1, para. 6.5.

48. Ibid., para. 6.6.

49. IAEA Statute, Arts. II, III, XX: EURATOM Treaty, Arts. 52, 93: NPT, Preamble, paras. 4 to 7.

50. Wohlstetter supra n. 46, at p. 96: Goldschmidt, and Kratzer, supra n. 14, at p. 23.Google Scholar

51. E.g., Opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown on the extent of the legal obligations of Her Majesty's Government arising out of the Simonstown Agreements, para. 13, Cmnd. 4589 (1971). For a resume of decisions of international courts and tribunals in which the Vienna Convention has been cited or relied upon, see Briggs, , 73 AJIL (1979) pp. 470–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

52. Art. 31(1) provides:

A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.

‘Context’ is specifically taken to include the preamble to a treaty (Art. 31(2). Art. 31(1) has been described as setting out the principle of contemporaneity, i.e., “the language of the treaty must be interpreted in the light of the contemporary meaning of terms”. Brownlie, I., Principles of public international law (2nd ed. 1973) p. 602. Art. 32 provides:Google Scholar

Recourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretation, including … the circumstances of its conclusion, in order to confirm the meaning resulting from the application of article 3…

53. Art. 31(3)(a)and(b).

54. Parker Report supra n. 1, para. 6.13.

55. Ibid., para. 6.12.

56. Defined in Art. DC.3 as a state “which has manufactured or exploded a nuclear weapon or other nuclear explosive device prior to 1 January 1967”.

57. I.e., both are essential stages in the nuclear fuel cycle supra p. 1 and n. 22.

58. Parker Report supra n. 1, para. 6.13.

59. See evidence of A. Wohlstetter, a principal witness for Foe, cited in Conroy supra n. 46.

60. Id.

61. I.e., in respect of transfers of plutonium authorized by those states, see supra n. 46.

62. Paras. 3 and 4 are omitted.

63. Though this expression is not defined in the NPT, the Report, correctly, it is submitted, avers that in view of the reference to IAEA safeguards, it has the same meaning as in the IAEA Statute Art. XX. This specifically refers to both plutonium and enriched uranium.

64. Parker Report supra n. 1, para. 6.14.

65. Wohlstetter, supra n. 46, at p. 179.Google Scholar

66. Parker Report supra n. 1, para. 6.15.

67. Id.

68. Id. The Agreement referred to is the NPT.

69. Ibid., para. 6.17.

70. Id. The strict dichotomy of the “letter” and the “spirit” of a treaty is not envisaged by the rules governing the interpretation of treaties established in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties supra n. 52.

71. The Japanese statement is quoted in the Parker Report supra n. 1, para. 6.18.

72. Ibid., para. 6.26.

73. See, 946 H.C. Deb.cols. 1537 (22–23 March 1978); 950 H.C. Deb.cols. 111–179, (15 May 1978).

74. Ibid., c. 1667.

75. Quoted by Firmage, , “The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons”, 63 AJIL (1969) p. 711 et seq. at p. 728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

76. Firmage supra n. 75; Willrich, , “The Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons: Nuclear Technology Confronts World Politics. 77 Yale L. Journal (1968) p. 1447CrossRefGoogle Scholar et seq. at pp. 1495–96. Compare, Fischer, G., The non-proliferation of nuclear weapons (1971) at p. 110Google Scholar: “it (Art. IV.2) introduces an idea of obligation but its scope remains somewhat vague”.

77. Parker Report supra n. 1, para. 6.16. See also, Epstein, supra n. 9, at p. 93.Google Scholar

78. Paras. 4, 5 and 6.

79. Epstein, supra n. 9, at p. 163.Google Scholar

80. Paras. 9 to 12.

81. The view expressed in the text is taken by Epstein, supra n. 9, at p. 182Google Scholar; and by Firmage supra n. 75, who regards Art. VI as “the single most important part of the Treaty from the standpoint of its long-term success or failure of the goal of non-proliferation”.

82. I.e., their spread to additional countries.

83. I.e., the further development, accumulation and deployment of nuclear weapons.

84. Financial Times, (11 05 1979).Google Scholar The preamble to SALT II refers to the “obligations under Art. VI of the NPT” undertaken by the US and USSR.

85. Supra n. 59, at p. 68 – Professor J.E.S. Fawcett, of King's College, London, is reported as having said that the Parker Report had got the objective of the NPT the wrong way round and that the prime purpose of the treaty was the non- proliferation of nuclear weapons promulgated in Arts. I and II, rather than the exchange of technology etc., set out in Art. IV: The Guardian (22 03 1978).Google Scholar

86. Wohlstetter, quoted in Conioy, supra n. 59, at p. 69.Google Scholar It has been observed that the NPT, “like any political document, … represents a compromise amongst a number of differing points of view and positions. As such its provisions are not always clear nor are their limits always precisely defined”: Epstein, supra n. 9, at p. 87.Google Scholar

87. Epstein, p. 169Google Scholar, et seq. For an account of the progress in developing countries see, A Short History of Non-Proliferation at p. 24 (IAEA-1976).Google Scholar

88. Thus confirming the prophecy made in 1968 by Willrich supra n. 76, at p. 1496.

89. Lowrance, W., “Nuclear Futures for Sale: Issues Raised by the West German-Brazilian Nuclear Agreement”, in International Arrangements for nuclear fuel reprocessing, supra n. 27.Google Scholar

90. Ibid., at p. 214. Lowrance criticises the justification given for the sale as “based on literal deference to treaties under minimalist interpretation”. It was reported early in 1979 that Brazil was considering cutting back on its nuclear energy program. The Guardian (30 04 1979).Google Scholar

91. This review procedure was required by virtue of Art. VII. 3.

92. See the “Final Declaration of the Review of Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons”, (05 1975)Google Scholar, reprinted in E.Mc. Dowelled.) Digest of United States practice in international law 1975, at pp. 849–855.Google Scholar For an analysis of the Declaration see Epstein, , Retrospective on the NPT Review Conference: Proposals for the Future, Occasional Paper 9, (Stanley Foundation 1975).Google Scholar

93. B. Goldschmidt, quoted by Epstein, supra n. 9 at p. 167.Google Scholar However, the developing countries have shown no signs of relaxing their pressure for the implementation of Art. IV; see text of resolutions adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in December 1977 on peaceful uses of atomic energy and general and complete disarmament, reproduced in Non-Proliferation and International Safeguards at pp. 64 and 71Google Scholar, (IAEA - 1978). The UN Special Session on Disarmament held in New York in May/June 1978, issued a declaration of principles which included references to the “inalienable rights” of all states to apply, develop and use nuclear technology: See 20, IAEA Bulletin (08 1978).Google Scholar

94. Goldschmidt, and Kratzer, supra n. 14, at p. 35.Google Scholar Whereas a decade ago, the market for nuclear reactors and related services was dominated by the US, today there are at least 7 other supplier states, see Greenwood supra n. 24 at p. 87.

95. The objective of safeguards is “the timely detection of diversion of significant quantities of nuclear material from peaceful nuclear activities to the manufacture of nuclear weapons or of other nuclear explosive devices or for purposes unknown, and deterrence of such diversion by the risk of early detection”: The Structure and Content of Agreements between the Agency and States required in connection with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, para. 28. (IAEA INFCIRC/153) 1971. These Agreements are required under the terms of Art. III. 1 of the NPT supra p. 48.

96. See Scheinmann, L., “Safeguarding Reprocessing Facilities: The Impact of Multinationalization”, in International arrangements for nuclear fuel reprocessingGoogle Scholarsupra n. 27: Ford-Mitre Report supra n. 20, at p. 292.Google Scholar

97. Conroy, supra n. 12, at p. 64Google Scholar, The Guardian windscale: A summary of the evidence and the argument at p. 64 (evidence of DrCochran, Thomas). (London 1978).Google Scholar

98. Parker Report supra n. 1, para. 6.6.

99. Art. III 1, NPT (emphasis added). This part of Art. III is omitted from the transcription in the Parker Report.

100. Art. III 2 supra p. 49: IAEA: Letters and Memoranda of Member States on commitments under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. INFCIRC/209, (3 September 1974) reproduced in 14 ILM (1975) pp. 543–551.

101. Epstein supra n. 9, at p. 156.

102. Ibid., pp. 155–156. This unsatisfactory situation was noted at the NPT Review Conference, 1975 supra n. 92; in reviewing Art. III, the Conference urged that “in all achievable ways, common export requirements relating to safeguards be strengthened, in particular by extending the application of safeguards to all peaceful nuclear activities in importing states, not party to the Treaty”.

103. Nuclear Suppliers Group: Guidelines for Nuclear Transfers, IAEA-INFCIRC/254 (02 1978)Google Scholar reproduced in 17 ILM (1978) pp. 220–234. The guidelines have been analyzed in detail elsewhere; see Goldschmidt, and Kratzer, supra n. 14, at pp. 37–45.Google Scholar

104. Ibid., paras. 4, 6 and 7; Annex A, para. 2.31 as clarified in Annex D.

105. Barnaby, F., “A Gentleman's Nuclear Agreement” in 73 New Scientist (24 02 1977) p. 461.Google Scholar

106. Id.

107. Goldschmidt, and Kiatzer, supra n. 14, at p. 40.Google Scholar

108. Patterson, W., “The Windscale Report – a nuclear apologia”, in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (1978) p. 44.Google Scholar

109. Goldschmidt, and Kratzei, supra n. 14, at p. 43Google Scholar, where it is pointed out that neither agreement infringed the London Club guidelines.

110. See Written Answer on British policy on exports of nuclear equipment and technology by James Callaghan, the then Foreign Secretary, in 908 H.C. Deb. c.515 (31 March 1976); and subsequent statement by his successor, Dr. Owen, that the UK Government “has never made such a sale nor do we intend to do so”, 946 H.C. Deb. c.1667, (23 03 1978).Google Scholar

111. The text of the Ford statement is reprinted in McDowell, E., ed., Digest of US practice in international law 1976 p. 555Google Scholar; the Carter statement is reproduced in 71 AJIL pp. 775–78 (1977). For comparison of the two policies, see International co-operation on breeder reactors supra n. 20, at pp. 3. 34–35.Google Scholar

112. Supra n. 1, para. 6.20 et seq.

113. The third point in this programme is omitted from the text.

114. All seven initiatives have been or are in the process of being implemented; see the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act 1978, 22 US 3201-3281 reprinted in 72 AJIL (1978) p. 712 and 14 ILM (1978) p. 397.

115. Nye, , “Non-Proliferation: a long-term strategy”, in 56 Foreign Affairs (1978) pp. 609–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

116. Goldschmidt, and Kratzer, supra n. 14, at p. 47.Google Scholar

117. Address to the Royal Institute of International Affairs, 19 05 1977Google Scholar, reprinted in 249 Atom (1977) p. 132.Google Scholar

118. Supra n. 1, para. 6.23. In the remarks referred to, President Carter observed that the US “was not trying to impose its will on those nations like … Britain … which already have reprocessing plants in operation … obviously (these) smaller (sic) nations, the ones that now have established power plants, have to have some place either to store their spent fuel or to have it reprocessed and I think we could very likely see a continuation of reprocessing capabilities within these nations I have named and perhaps others … They have a perfect right to go ahead and continue with their own reprocessing efforts. But we hope they will join us in eliminating in the future additional countries which might have had this capability evolved” supra n. 111.

119. Supra n. 1, para. 17.6.

120. Ibid., para. 6.33.

121. I.e., in addition to the Inspector's conclusion based on Art. IV, NPT.

122. Supra n. 1, paras. 6.24; 6.33.

123. Id.

124. Supra n. 1, para. 17.6.

125. Supra n. 111, at p. 777; Nye, supra n. 115, at p. 614.Google Scholar

126. Supra n. 1, para. 6.24.

127. Ibid., para. 6.25.

128. Id.

129. Supra n. 1, para. 6.26.

130. Ibid., paras. 6.30–6.33.

131. Ibid., paras. 6.32, 17.6.

132. Considerable reservations about the efficacy of this “technical fix” have been expressed on both safety and economic grounds: Ford-Mitre Report supra n. 20, at p. 297Google Scholar; Conroy, supra n. 12, at pp. 66–67.Google Scholar

133. Supra n. 1, para. 6.33.

134. The Report instances the case of spent fuel transferred by Japan to BNFL, para. 6.28.

135. Ibid., para. 6.29.

136. Id.

137. Supra n. 1, para. 6.33.

138. Ibid., para. 17.4.

139. I.e., it would fall within the terms of Art. 62, of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969. Art. 62 states:

1. A fundamental change of circumstances which has occurred with regard to those existing at the time of the conclusion of a treaty, and which was not foreseen by the parties, may not be invoked as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from the treaty unless:

(a) the existence of those circumstances constituted an essential basis of the consent of the parties to be bound by the treaty;and (b) the effect of the change is radically to transform the extent of obligations still to be performed under the treaty.

2. A fundamental change of circumstances may not be invoked as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from a treaty:

…(b) if the fundamental change is the result of a breach by the party invoking it either of an obligation under the treaty or of any other international obligation owed to any other party to the treaty.

3. If, … a party may invoke a fundamental change of circumstances as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from a treaty it may also invoke the change as a ground for suspending the operation of the treaty.

140. Compare, Nye, supra n. 115, at pp. 610–611Google Scholar: “technology transfers cannot be delayed forever, but they can be postponed until national energy programs really require such transfers and until we have time to develop more proliferation-resistant technology … In the interim, the question is whether restraints on the transfer of sensitive technology are consistent with our undertakings … under Art. 4 … Clearly there is a degree of tension, but so long as it is temporary, we believe that restraint is consistent with the fact that under the Treaty, we also undertake to avoid steps that would lead to the spread of nuclear weapons”.

141. This would be a matter to be established by reference to the relationship of the clause to other clauses, the preparatory work and the circumstances of the conclusion of the treaty.

142. Supra n. 139, para. 2.6.

143. I.e., the NPT being a multilateral treaty, the breach would fall within the terms of Art. 60 of the Viennna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which defines a material breach as a “violation of a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object and purpose of the treaty” (para. 3).

144. As set out in Art. 60.2(a) to (c). Fischer, supra n. 76, at pp. 141–42Google Scholar, argues that it would be undesirable if violation of a treaty such as the NPT entitled other parties without notice to automaticallly terminate or suspend in whole or in part the operation of the treaty. Hence he prefers the alternative of withdrawal in Art. X of the NPT, which requires three months notice to be given to all other contracting parties and to the Security Council.

145. It has been suggested that the right in Art. X is exercisable only in the case of “dramatic events”: Fischer, supra n. 76, at pp. 139–40.Google Scholar Art. X is quoted in full in the Parker Report but is not the subject of any comment in the text of the Report.

146. Art. VIII. Admittedly, the amendment procedures are so cumbersome as to preclude any real likelihood of their being put into practice.

147. The economic arguments against reprocessing are considered in the Ford-Mitre Report supra n. 20, at pp. 319–333Google Scholar, and by Johnson, , International Proliferation of Nuclear WeaponsGoogle Scholar, in (G. Foley and A. van Buren) Nuclear or not?: Choices for our energy future (1978) p. 186.Google Scholar

148. The Times, (London 15 05 1978).Google Scholar

149. See editorial in 272 Nature

149. See editorial in 272 Nature (23 03 1978) p. 297.Google Scholar

150. Evidence of Dr. Thomas Cochrane to the Windscale Inquiry, quoted in Conroy, supra n. 12, at p. 61.Google Scholar

151. Gilensky, V., “Plutonium, Proliferation and the Price of Reprocessing”, in 57 Foreign Affairs (1978/1979 Winter) at p. 376.Google Scholar

152. Supra n. 1, paras. 9.19, 17.4, 17.7.

153. BNFL did in fact make this one of its principal contentions at the Inquiry, Parker Report supra n. 1, paras. 5.6 – 5.7.

154. Ibid., para. 17.7.

155. Ibid., para. 17.4.

156. Ibid., para. 9.19.

157. Ibid., para. 9.18.

158. The summary is reproduced in Conroy supra n. 12, in Appendix 3.

159. The Times (London 25 May 1978).Google Scholar Shortly after this announcement a much smaller contract, worth 540 million, for reprocessing spent fuel from the Netherlands, was announced by BNFL: Financial Times (10 06 1978).Google Scholar The French reprocessing industry has contracts with seven countries involving a total of 5,660 tonnes of spent fuel. Financial Times (25 08 1978).Google Scholar

160. Gilensky, supra n. 151, at p. 376.Google Scholar

161. The communique is reproduced in BULL. E.C. 718–1977.

162. The final report is now expected in February 1980: Financial Times (18 September 1979).

163. Nye, supra n. 115, at p. 616.Google Scholar This article outlines the programme's eight work areas, each of which is designed to strike a balance between the benefits of nuclear energy and the risks of proliferation. The fourth of these areas is concerned, inter alia, with the proliferation implications of reprocessing. See, Fishlock, , “Trying to solve the nuclear proliferation problem”, in Financial Times (21 10 1977).Google Scholar

164. Supra n. 1, para. 6.21.

165. Ibid., para. 6.35.

166. Dr. Owen, having adverted to the expressed wish of the US Government that the UK defer a decision on reprocessing until the result of INFCEP was known, stated in Parliament that “there is no obligation under the terms of our participation … for us to defer a decision on nuclear projects … it is not realistic just to assume that the participating Governments… will come to an agreement that reprocessing, which many of them have long anticipated is not now necessary and should be abandoned”. 946 H.C. Deb. c.1550 (22 March 1978).

167. Forman, , “The Windscale Error”, in 273Google ScholarNature (1 06 1978) p. 332.Google Scholar

168. Supra n. 166 at c.1660. It is not without interest that the UK has, in deference to INFCEP, delayed until its completion deliveries of enriched uranium under contracts negotiated by United Reprocessors (URENCO), a partnership of British, French and German companies, with Brazil. 951 H.C. Deb. c.308 (12 June 1978).

169. Ibid., c. 1665.

170. See Art. II of the Agreement between the US and EURATOM, 1958, as amended. The rationale for this exception is that EURATOM is recognized by the US as a single entity for the purpose of transfers with the Community and as having an effective safeguards system of its own. See generally, Gilensky, supra n. 151, at p. 375Google Scholar; Power supra n. 13.

171. Art. XI of the US-EURATOM Agreement makes it clear that prior US approval is required for the transfer to or retransfer from EURATOM of nuclear material supplied by the US to a non-EURATOM country.

172. Goldschmidt, and Kratzer, supra n. 14, at p. 46.Google Scholar

173. Ibid., pp. 51–52, where it is maintained that this requirement conflicts with US assurances that the results of INFCEP would not be prejudiced. It would appear that under the terms of the Non-Proliferation Act the US-Euratom co-operation agreement will be allowed to continue provided EURATOM agrees to take part in negotiations to update the agreement: Twelfth general report on the activities of the European communities in 1978, (Brussels 1979) p. 276.Google Scholar

174. For a general appraisal of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act 1978, see Power supra n. 13.

175. Gilensky, supra n. 151, at p. 375.Google Scholar A similar formulation of this policy made by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the US Bureau of Oceans and International and Scientific Affairs on 1 July 1977, is quoted in the Parker Report supra n. 1, para. 6.28. Transfers of Japanese spent fuel of US origin for reprocessing in the UK and France were approved in April 1979 under the so-called MB 10 procedure (the number of the form issued by the US Government): Financial Times (30 04 1979).Google Scholar

176. The Times (London 9 02 1978)Google Scholar, quoting from a letter written by the US Deputy Undersecretary of state for Security Assistance Science and Technology, Joseph S. Nye, to the British Foreign Office.

177. Section 131(b)(2).

178. Id.

179. Gilensky, supra n. 151, at p. 381.Google Scholar

180. Ibid., at p. 379. These problems include: the establishment of safe storage sites for both plutonium and radioactive wastes; the determination of rules for transportation of same; and, most crucial of all, selection of the criteria to govern when and to whom plutonium may be transferred.

181. Cmnd. 6615 (September 1976). For the Government's response to the Report, see Cmnd. 6820 (May 1977).

182. A term that the Parker Report considers “emotive and inaccurate” supra n. 1, para 7.9.

183. Supra n. 181. at pp. 74–76.

184. The Times (London 19 05 1978).Google Scholar See also, Nuclear or not? Choices for our energy future supra n. 147, at p. 198Google Scholar, where in response to a question on the international management of Windscale, Sir John Hill, Chairman of the UK Atomic Energy Authority, expressed the view that “the British Government would be very reluctant to give up control of what goes on at … Windscale. However if we look ahead we might buy an island somewhere, internationally, or make an agreement that an international reprocessing plant would be built”. The notion that reprocessing be brought under the auspices of multinational or regional fuel cycle arrangements was not considered by the Parker Report. For an exposition of the case for such arrangements see Smith, and Chayes, , Institutional Arrangements for nuclear fuel reprocessingGoogle Scholar, Chayes, and Lewis, eds. 1979.Google Scholar The Ford-Mitre Report expressed scepticism about multinational reprocessing supra n. 20, at pp. 381–82.

185. See 946 H.C. Deb. c. 1550.

186. 272 Nature (23 03 1978) p. 301.Google Scholar

187. The phrase used by Anthony Wedgewood Benn, Secretary of State for Energy in the Callaghan Administration, to describe the well-organized scientific and industrial lobby for nuclear power: 940 H.C. Deb. c.972 (2 December 19701.

188. See Marshall, , Nuclear Power and the Proliferation IssueGoogle Scholar, (Lecture given at the University of Glasgow, February 1978), reprinted in 258 Atom (1978) p. 78.Google Scholar See also reported remarks of the Secretary-General of the IAEA at its 1978 General Conference, Financial Times (19 09 1978).Google Scholar Compare Epstein, supra n. 9, at p. 17Google Scholar: “… in the case of France and India … the development of nuclear explosives followed and was made possible by the development of rather advanced peaceful programs. It is quite likely that the latter experience will become the pattern of the future”.

189. Dr. Walter Marshall, (Deputy Chairman of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority) supra n. 188, at p. 2.

190. Id.

191. For affirmation of the view stated in the text see, Report of the Acheson-Lilienthal Committee on the International Control of Atomic Energy 1946 supra n.12; and Feld, , “Plain Talk about Nuclear Proliferation”, 35 Bulletin of the atomic scientists 4 (01 1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

192. Gilensky, supra n. 151, at p. 384.Google Scholar

193. See Greenwood, supra n. 24, at pp. 174–75.Google Scholar

194. Seen. 93 supra.

195. Quoted in The guardian windscale supra n. 97, at p. 91.Google Scholar

196. For example, in 1979, Iran and India underwent a change of government. In the former case it produced a shift towards anti nuclear energy policies involving cancellation of contracts for the construction of nuclear reactors by France and the Federal Republic of Germany: The Guardian (18 04 1979) (31 July 1979).Google Scholar In the case of India, the fall of the Desai Administration, which was committed to a strict policy of non-military uses of nuclear energy, has led to speculation that this policy may well be reversed should Pakistan detonate a nuclear device: The Guardian (16 08 1979).Google Scholar

197. New, cheap and therefore less-proliferation proof methods of enriching uranium to weapons-usable levels are, according to recent reports, not far away from being realized. Examples are enrichment by laser and the “jet nozzle” process being developed by South Africa: see Fishlock, , “A cottage industry nuclear bomb”, Financial Times (10 05 1978)Google Scholar; Cervenka, Z. and Rogers, B., The nuclear axis, (1978).Google Scholar

198. See jeports of the covert methods used by Pakistan to acquire the “know-how” and technical components necessary for the construction of a uranium enrichment plant: The Guardian (22 06 1979)Google Scholar; Financial Times (22 08 1979).Google Scholar The United States has applied several counter-measures against Pakistan including the cutting off of all economic development aid: Financial Times (11 04 1979)Google Scholar; The Guardian, (13 08 1979).Google Scholar