Pursuing negotiations in good faith? Australia's reliance on extended nuclear deterrence, its obligations under the NPT and its opposition to a ban treaty

Over the last few years, as part of the international efforts to achieve nuclear disarmament, civil society organizations have put pressure on the Australian government to abandon its policy of relying on US extended nuclear deterrence and suggested that Australia may be legally obliged to give up this policy pursuant to the nuclear disarmament obligations in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty ('NPT'). To date the Australian government has refused to entertain the idea of abandoning its reliance on US nuclear protection. Australia has claimed that its extended nuclear deterrence policy is not in conflict with its obligation under Article VI of the NPT to 'pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to … nuclear disarmament'. Although the policy of extended nuclear deterrence is prima facie not necessarily incompatible with disarmament, there are ways in which the policy could come into conflict with the Article VI obligation. In March 2017, the UN will convene negotiations for a treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons. Australia has continually opposed a ban treaty and justifies its position by arguing that a blanket prohibition on nuclear weapons is not an effective mechanism for disarmament. Given that Australia has taken the unprecedented step of boycotting the upcoming UN conference, my paper will explore whether Australia has reached a point where it can no longer claim that it is pursuing disarmament negotiations in good faith.