THE IMPACT OF THE INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY ON NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION EFFORTS

1 | P a g e

THE IMPACT OF THE INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY ON NUCLEAR

NON-PROLIFERATION EFFORTS

1. IAEA's Establishment and Mandate

I. Historical context

The IAEA was founded in 1957 following the post-World War II period of the Cold War and

rising tensions over the possession of atomic bombs. The formation of the agency was as a result

of the „Atoms for Peace‟ speech given by the then President of USA Dwight D. Eisenhower in

the United Nation in 1953 (Krige, 2021). The background to the creation of IAEA is vested

within the essence of the nuclear science in equal measure of both destruction as well as an

opportunity for immense constructive use. The two have defined the agency‟s function and

modus operandi from the very beginning of its establishment. The post-WWII period was

marked by emerging technical development nuclear technology, so attempts were made

internationally to ban nuclear weapons and develop peaceful uses of atomic energy (Fischer &

Szasz, 2020). This is because the creation of the IAEA was based on international recognition of

the necessity of a totally independent technical organization to address such matters. As Hoenig

(2019) pointed out, the emergence of the agency was rather complex because on one hand, there

were the nuclear weapon states that were most concerned about security while on the other hand,

the non-nuclear weapon states who wanted access to technology. Another aspect of the IAEA‟s

history is related to changes in the processes of interstate relations as it was facing the conflict

between East and West during the Cold War period while at the same time, trying to preserve its

objectivity as a purely technical organization (Lewis, 2021).

II. Founding principles

Ever since its creation, the main principles in relation to which the IAEA operates have been

established in its Statute. Integral to these principles is the principle of „Atoms for Peace‟, that

focused on the advancement of peace through nuclear applications and discontinuing the use for

destructive violent purposes (ElBaradei, 2019). This duality is a result of the promotion of

nuclear technology of the one hand and the need to promote world security on the other. The

agency was created on the basis of cooperation between countries, as global threats, such as the

use of nuclear energy, do not stop at state borders. Moreover, according to Fischer and Szasz‟s

(2020) it is necessary to state that the IAEA‟s founding principles also address the ideas of

independence and technical expertise, which are essential for the organization‟s reliability in the

sphere of verification. Surgeons again, the agencies‟ status as an independent organization

operating within the framework of the United Nations system defines its specificity in the system

of global governance. The second principle is safeguards, which is the foundation of the

agency‟s non-proliferation activities in accordance with the atomic energy Act of 1954 AMEND

1994. These are safety measures put in place to ensure that nuclear materials and facilities are

not used or redirected into undesirable uses (Jones, 2019). Another significant principle of the

IAEA is the equality of its members, in this case, states, which guarantees the equal rights and

2 | P a g e

responsibilities before the agency (Shaker, 2020). This principle has been very relevant

especially in handling the fears of the third world nations on the use of nuclear technology for

peaceful purposes. These are the following main goals and missions of the IAEA: Safeguarding

of peaceful uses of nuclear energy, non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, provision of support

for implementing nuclear safety improvements, as well as enhancement of international relations

in nuclear sphere. To realize these goals, the IAEA carries out numerous actions: conducting

IAEA inspections and monitoring of nuclear facilities as well as delivering technical cooperation

and capacity development (Lewis, 2021). These objectives are reflected in the agency‟s

organizational setting, the Secretariat headed by the Director General, and departments for

safeguards, nuclear energy, technical cooperation, and nuclear safety and security. Such an

organizational structure; allows the IAEA to deal with its multifaceted activities and counter new

threats in the sphere of nuclear.

III. Core objectives

Thus, the central goals and strategic directions of the IAEA, formulated in the Statute and further

strategic documents, structurally correspond to the agency‟s multinational functions in nuclear

regulation. First of all, the agency‟s objectives include the development of the utilization of

nuclear energy for non-aggressive purposes and the non-use in warfare. The attainment of these

two objectives also points to the fact that IAEA was created to be at the center of fostering the

advancement in innovation while at the same time regard the security threats to the world as a

priority (Lewis, 2021). One of the goals is to; ensure vital protection measures to guarantee that

nuclear materials and related facilities are not used for purposes of weapon state. This

verification role is essential in preserving confidence in the current non-proliferation among

other nations in the international society (Abraham & Harling, 2020). The IAEA uses

professional methods and innovative tools for verifying and controlling the fulfillment by states

of their non-proliferation obligations in connection with nuclear materials, and for identifying

signs of violations of the agreement reached on the accountability of such materials (Jones,

2019). Another is to promote the exchange of nuclear technology for the purposes of its peaceful

utilization especially to the developing nations. This entails providing necessary assistance to the

member states in sectors such as nuclear energy, health, farming, and even the check on the

environment (Muller, 2019). The IAEA has technical cooperation programs to deliver advisory

services, capacity building, and nuclear equipment to monitor nuclear benefits within the safety

standards of the management. These efforts are important; in the quest to solve some

development issues and spur socio economic development, in the less developed regions. The

IAEA also has the mandate of developing and recommending safety regime of nuclear facilities

and materials for the growth of nuclear safety and security internationally (Cometto & Hanlon,

2019). The agency comes up with general safety measures and also works with peer reviews and

advisory mission and therefore helps the countries to put in place sound measures for nuclear

safety. Thus, it minimizes the occurrence of mishaps and reduces potential hazards of nuclear

activities which mean, consequently, the enhancement of public and environmental health.

Moreover; the agency aims of promoting international cooperation, it is the center of scientific

3 | P a g e

cooperation and international collaboration in nuclear science and technology. According to

Bensahel (2020) , all these objectives aggregate make the IAEA a fundamental actor in playing a

role in responding to problems that affect the world relating to energy , health and environment

and, at the same time is formulating a world without nuclear weapons. In other words; the

agency is responsible for the utilization of nuclear technology for; constructive and non-violent

purposes, strict control of nuclear materials and improvement of nuclear security internationally.

IV. Organizational structure

The organization structure of IAEA is so designed that it ensures the achievement of its mandate

and various activities in the better way. The apex governing body is the General Conference that

includes all member-states with a sit-down session at least once a year to prescribe the agency‟s

overall guidelines as well as endorsing the budget (Shaker, 2020). This conference is a forum

through which member states make major decisions; on the agency‟s activities, and where the

directions of the agency are kept consistent with its member states‟ goals. A larger body termed

the General Conference is composed of over 180 member states; however, the Board of

Governors, which has 35 members, plays a more proactive role in overseeing the organization‟s

operations and setting its general direction. It convenes several times a year to deliberate on The

agency‟s policies, program, and financial affairs to agree on or reconsider its operation in a way

that is consistent with its stated goals and its obligations under international law (Hoenig, 2019).

The routine work of the organization is conducted by the Secretariat headed by the Director-

General who is elected by the Board and approved by the General Conference. The Director

General; supervises the operations of the policies and the overall functioning of the agency‟s

multifaceted tasks. The Secretariat is much structured into departments, which are charged with

the responsibility of handling various aspects of the IAEA activities for instance; nuclear energy

and the nuclear power department and nuclear safety and security department, nuclear sciences

and applications department as well as the safeguards department. Such a division ensures that

there is an accumulation of expertise in different fields as the department deals with the various

aspects of this agency‟s mandate cross over services offerings (Kurokawa & Kaneko, 2020).

IAEA also has a large network laboratories and research centers that sustain its; technical actions

and research programs, and thus offer core data and also analysis to the agency‟s operations.

Regional offices and liaison offices established in strategic centers throughout the world enable

the agency to maintain cooperative relationships with member countries as well as other global

organizations, thus supporting the functioning of the agency‟s programs and information

exchange (Fischer & Szasz, 2020). In line with Fischer and Szasz (2020), the author has

explained that it is not invalid to note that due to the dynamism that is characteristic of the

international system and global relations, and also due to changes in such issues as nuclear

technology the organizational structure of the IAEA has not remained static.

4 | P a g e

2. Safeguards and Verification Systems

I. Types of safeguards agreements

IAEA safeguard system is supported by different types of believes that are in various aspects and

certain commitments of the member states. The most common type is the CSA, which non-

nuclear-weapon states party to the NPT must conclude and implement. CSAs demand the states

to declare the nuclear material and, establishing the nuclear activities and submitting such

declarations to verification by IAEA (Hinderstein & Pomper, 2020). This agreement entails;

surveillance and monitoring and physical inspection for the verification that nuclear material is

not being supplied to the weapons-friendly nations; for the purpose of developing nuclear

weapons. To overcome the weaknesses of the CSA, the AP was negotiated in the 1990s that

provided the IAEA with broader scope and S&E information acquiring authority. The AP

enhances the agency‟s capacity to identify illicit nuclear programs by enabling agency

inspections for more extensive reports and declarations from states (Jones, 2019). Conventional

agreements for States with nuclear weapons, VOAs offer the states an opportunity to place the

identified civil nuclear power projects under IAEA safeguards. Less elaborate than CSAs, VOAs

evidence these states‟ non-proliferation endeavors by subjecting certain facilities to international

monitoring, which enhances the general openness and assurance (Abraham & Harling, 2020).

There are safeguards agreements on items, which are less frequently used than comprehensive

ones, when it comes to the states which are not the parties of the NPT – it may concern certain

materials or facilities. This approach helps IAEA to counter proliferation risks related to non-

signatory states as such an approach rarely goes beyond the specific items or sites, which is

rather different from the national programs. The other one is the Small Quantities Protocol (SQP)

which is intended for states with negligible or no nuclear activities at all, which eases the process

to implement safeguards and at the same time, retains key verification features. Due to the

possibility of over-protection for states with less developed nuclear power infrastructure, the

SQP is aware that stronger protect measures may be excessive, which allows for a more

manageable level of compliance (Bajema & Duffield, 2021). Such diversified agreement types

signify the endeavors of the IAEA to develop a more global and versatile safeguard system to

meet the requirements of strict verification and member state‟s condition in spite of the

contingency.

II. Inspection procedures

IAEA inspection procedures represent the core of non-compliance identification and fulfillment

of the stated objective of safeguards agreements. These procedures include; on-site and/or off-

site examination and evaluation of the organization‟s records and processes. There is annual or

biennial inspection of the declared nuclear facilities, where the inspector follows up on the state

declarations, carries out physical inventory checks and containment and surveillance activities,

as conducted by Dorn and Husseini in 2021. They verify the quantities of nuclear material to

declared quantities; determine the functionality of the devices and equipment and also confirm

proper security of the material. The periodicity of such inspections is established by the amount

5 | P a g e

and activities of the given NM, the characteristics of the facility involved, and the general status

of the given state‟s nuclear power program. Those facilities that contain large quotas of nuclear

material are subjected to frequent tests and inspections, while the other ones may be tested and

inspected rarely. Also include the use of mass or sometimes sudden inspections that help IAEA

check for the prohibited activities and practices and to ensure on any extra measures regarding

safeguards are complied with at all times by the member-states (Garcia, 2020). Complementary

access, which is valid for Additional Protocol states, enables the inspectors to go to other places

not declared as nuclear facilities. This means getting more access greatly improves the IAEA‟s

capacity to render credible assurance regarding non-diversion and non-use of civil nuclear

energy for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices and strengthens the over-all

verification effort (Jones 2019). Another type of inspection is environmental sampling that

allows identifying violations suspected due to the presence of small amounts of nuclear material.

It also uses state-of-the-art tools like satellite imagery analysis and open-source data collection

together with its on-site work (Hibbs, 2021). These detailed inspection procedures together with

simultaneous DPIR analysis on collected data allow the IAEA to come up with the right

conclusion on states‟ compliance or otherwise their safeguards obligations to culminate into an

important facet of global non-proliferation regime.

III. Technology and equipment used

IAEA safeguards and verification means are based on modern technologies and application of

tools and equipment for proper and efficient monitoring of nuclear processes. Non-destructive

analysis methods proved vital in order to determine the qualities of nuclear materials in an

inspected sample without damaging the sample in any way. Techniques like gamma-ray

spectrometry, neutron counting, and calorimetry serve a certain type of nuclear materials and

situations that give essential data for confirmation (Hibbs, 2021). The typical measures for

securing continuity of knowledge considered within the framework of inspections are the

application of tamper-indicating seals and surveillance cameras. These systems have evolved to

include remote monitoring features; that allows for transmission of real-time data to the IAEA

headquarters to ensure that such problems are detected and redressed, as early as is possible

(Dorn & Husseini, 2021). There have also been developments in the technology used in the

collection of samples from the environment whereby even small particles of nuclear materials

suggestive of nuclear activities not declared are collected. C Samples obtained from numerous

sites are tested in a chain of analytical laboratories via highly developed activities that include

mass spectrometry and particle analysis to check for the violations (Jones, 2019). Furthermore,

the use of satellite imagery and geospatial tools is also incorporated currently in the IAEA‟s non-

diversion verification capabilities. These tools enable the agency to monitor alterations of the

nuclear facilities, rate and measure construction activities, and planning the execution of

inspections (Garcia, 2020). With the changing nuclear technology and the ever rising challenge,

the IAEA to date works on improving their used equipment. Present day research emphasis is on

improving the portability, sensitivity and convenience of the instruments used for the purpose of

inspection. The enhancement of artificial intelligence presence and machine learning in data

6 | P a g e

analysis departments constitute yet another major innovation, intended to enhance the IAEA‟s

capacity to identify deviations and patterns characteristic of non-compliance, thus verifying

nuclear actions much more effectively (Goldschmidt & Albright, 2019).

IV. Challenges in implementation

Thus, huge challenges arise before the IAEA attempting to guarantee proper and effective

implementation of the safeguards and verification measures and procedures which are based on

the cutting-edge systems and methods. This is a major issue since, in nuclear systems, the

technology is changing and continues to develop, and, therefore, techniques and equipment for

verification must also change constantly. Such is the case with the radio-chemists‟ C. L. Bennett

and C. H. Peeples, who in the late 1970s envisioned „A Systems Approach to Utilizing Integral

Fast Reactors for Producing Actinides-burning „Advanced Nuclear Fuel Cycles‟ ” (Bajema &

Duffield, 2021). This type of environment requires; constantly fine-tuning the ways to verify

identities and inventing new solutions to match the new threats. Another major problem is that of

identifying clandestine nuclear industry especially in countries that are likely to be concealing

such industry. Thus, its adoption as a universal treaty is still considered important due to the

introduction of the Additional Protocol to increase the IAEA‟s ability to detect these activities.

Additional Protocol has not been ratified by many states; therefore, constraining the IAEA from

conducting elaborate inspections and assessments (Abraham and Harling 2020). Thus; the

agency‟s activity in terms of promoting a broader use of the protocol and enhancing adherence to

the protocol; remains instrumental in increasing the global nuclear safety level. Resource

constraints remain another limitation that one needs to overcome when holding a big party. It has

also been noticed that the IAEA‟s budget and workforce is sometimes inadequate when it comes

to the increasing roles of verification it gets involved in. It may create issues of priority and

coverage, thus reducing the effectiveness of inspections as well as the quick action when there is

a suspicion of violations (Newman & Zaring, 2021). Political challenges also add to the

problems of implementation; for some states may oppose more direct verification means or

restrict the scope of the inspectors‟ work, in particular sites. The situation of Iran‟s nuclear

program shows mixed methods of technical assurance and political archetypal peace making and

therefore presents many challenges to the IAEA in terms of corresponding to these two

requirements (Albright & Stricker, 2020). Also; the IAEA faces challenges in the issue of

secrecy of information and the disclosure of information; to support the international assuredness

in findings. As the nuclear technology is progressively becoming dual-use, it becomes

challenging to distinguish between the peaceful and the military utilization – analysis and

expertise. Reducing all these complex difficulties is imperative; to sustaining the viability and

believability of the IAEA‟s safeguards system, in light of the shifting nuclear environment.

7 | P a g e

3. Nuclear Material Accounting

I. Tracking fissile materials

NM tracking is one of the fundamental aspects of the IAEA‟s nuclear material; accounting and

control relevant to the prevention of the diversion of such materials for non-peaceful uses. This

includes documental transactions, physical counts, and precise measurements to out every gram

of fissile material in a state‟s possession. The IAEA uses a State System of Accounting for and

Control of Nuclear Material (SSAC) and dignifies all member states to properly account their

nuclear material and inform the agency of any modification. This system assures that all nuclear

material; from when it is produced to when it is finally disposed; is properly tracked and

accounted for. The SSAC is supported by IAEA‟s own assessment activities that include

physical verification of the material and use of containment and surveillance methodologies for

monitoring the flow of material and control against illicit traffic. Tracking starts from the point

when a state notifies the other states and the IAEA about the possession of newly produced or

imported nuclear material right up to its usage, storage, planned and actual export or disposal.

Measuring processes which involve destructive and non-destructive assay methods are used to

confirm the amount of fissile material and its compositions such that the compiled data is correct

as per the declaration of the materials. Descriptive assays require the examination of samples of

material irrespective of their physical solidity, while non-destructive assays include the

techniques such as gamma-ray spectroscopy and neutron counting. Statistical analysis is also

used by the IAEA to assess the reported volume and look for signs of an attempt at diversion.

However, following up on fissile materials is an issue especially when tracking is done in

environments where bulk-handling plant is involved since the small loss which occurs gradually

can sum up to a big end result. The Fissile Materials Working Group (2020) has pointed that for

these challenges the constant progress in measurement accuracies and inventory methods is

needed. Moreover, there is a constant adjustment to integrate new methodologies of tracking of

all fissile materials as well as the adjustment to the new advanced fuel cycles and new reactor

designs.

II. Reporting requirements for states

It has been noted that a large part of the competency of IAEA‟s nuclear material accounting

system depends on the reporting capabilities of these member states. These reporting

requirements are part of the requirement in the safeguards agreements between states with the

IAEA. Queens‟s agreements CSA states are to declare in the initial report all nuclear materials

put under safeguard, in addition, reports of changes in inventory, material balance and physical

inventory for material (Goldschmidt & Albright, 2019). The magnitude and extent of these

reports will depend on the type and quantity of the NM by means of detail reporting have to be

more frequent for the NM of higher proliferation interest such as enriched uranium and

plutonium. In addition, States are required to notify on designing data for nuclear facilities and

any amendments in this regard so that the safeguarding process can be most efficiently

accomplished (Jones, 2019). Reporting is even more detailed for states possessing Additional

8 | P a g e

Protocol, and covers other nuclear activities as well as information on the entire nuclear chain.

This entails information on R&D on all other facilities other than nuclear material, uranium

mining and exportation of some prescribed equipment and non-nuclear material (Abraham &

Harling, 2020). The requirement of reporting is very strict and certain time frame is mandated for

submitting various reports to the IAEA so that it can identify any signs of diversion or misuse of

nuclear material. For example, initial declarations it is necessary to submit in the specified time

after the agreement comes into force and further – monthly or quarterly updates usually.

However, some draw-backs have been experienced in implementing the above reporting

requirements among the member states. The technical capacity of states and their capacities to

source funds for engaging in reporting also play a role in the quality and timeliness of state

reporting (Hinderstein & Pomper, 2020). Certain states could be deficient of the required

facilities or human resource that would enable them to keep record and prepare comprehensive

reports and others could be sandwiched by political strings that do not encourage for open

disclosure. These challenges can only be tackled through capacity building measures and

stepping up of cooperation between the IAEA and member states for upholding the integrity of

the nuclear material accounting. There is a need to enhance compliance through education,

training, technical support and the development of templates for use by reports.

III. Data analysis techniques

As for the focus of the IAEA‟s NM procedure, the IAEA uses advanced methods, including data

analysis, in order to analyze the large amounts of data coming from NMAS. They have

significant relevance to search for awkwardness; in order to determine trends, and to make

conclusions regarding the completeness and specificity of state declarations. The major tools

used for these endeavors involve basic statistical analysis for instance material balance

evaluation and error propagation analysis to validate the integrity of the highlighted data in this

paper. The techniques involve the use of time series data to analyze the flow of nuclear materials

and-stockpiles over time in order to indicate anomalies or diversions. Its analytical structures

also include other sophisticated technologies such as; big data and machine learning. Some of

these instruments can analyze big data in a shorter amount of time and might even discover other

patterns or outliers that may not be detected by other techniques (Chow & Solomon, 2021).

There are network analysis methods which bring the visualization focus to the relationships

between; several nuclear facilities, material or activities, which give a more detailed picture

about the state‟s nuclear program. Also, the incorporation of satellite imagery analysis and open

source in IAEA data analysis has also greatly enriched its capability of verifying data provided

by states and identifying states with undeclared facilities (Rauf & Persbo, 2020). Thus, this

multiple-source analysis approach enhances the probability that the IAEA will acquire the

correct data set; for its assessments. Though, the continuously growing data challenges in terms

of its volume and its intricacy remain a problem that requires constant enhancement of the

analytical tools and approaches. The IAEA also has an obligation to provide careful analysis and,

at the same time, make its conclusions in the cases of potential non-compliance within the

required time-limit. This is in a bid to enable the agency to promptly be able to analyze the

9 | P a g e

gathered data and make consequent actions to counter every violation of the safeguard

agreements. Parallel to the continuing development of technologies, the means and methods of

analysis of agency‟s data need to be further adjusted to enhance the support of its verification

function. Thus; the ongoing investment in the development of new analytical tools and resources

is crucial; for sustaining the relevance of the analytical tools of the IAEA so that it can remain

useful in its role of monitoring and independently verifying nuclear activities at the global level.

IV. Detection of discrepancies

The verification of differences between the measured quantity of nuclear material and its

reported quantity is also a key feature of the IAEA‟s safeguards as it acts as a warning that there

is a possibility of diversion of material of misuse. This process involves comparing the declared

amount of nuclear material to that obtained during the inspections; also, it looks into the levels of

reported data in the past. The IAEA uses quantitative analysis, physical checks, and sampling to

assess the anomalies and further, to assess the discrepancies (Heinonen & Kelley, 2020). There is

one more indicator used, the Material Unaccounted For, or MUF, which comparing the book

inventory and the physical inventory of nuclear material. While small value of MUF is common

due to variability of measurements, higher or consistent MUF suggest material diversion or loss

(Shea, 2019). The IAEA also employs other modern techniques of measurements including the

high-resolution gamma spectrometry or neutron coincidence counting to confirm the quantity

and kind of the nuclear material on its own and crosschecked it with the declarations made by the

state in question (Hibbs, 2021). In terms of undeclared activities, environmental sampling is

useful in that low concentrations of nuclear materials could signify the state‟s non-disclosed

work. Thus, the analysis of these samples in the IAEA‟s Network of Analytical Laboratories

offers a strong approach to identifying abnormalities (Jones 2019, p21). The IAEA‟s established

procedure of verification is followed when inconsistencies arise and entail submitting further

questions to the state in concern, follow-up inspection or proposing certain issues to the Board of

Governors in the case of severe violations. Correction means; to identify the discrepancies and

bring them into compliance; it plays a key role in sustaining the credibility of the safeguards

system and also timely identification of non-compliance. This structured process is very

important in the enhancement of the non-proliferation regime as it involves highly robust checks

to ensure that any irregularities are well checked. Sustained improvement of the methodologies

for detection and accurate measurement will go a long way in improving the capacities of the

IAEA in the detection of discrepancies. This entails; achieving new methods of analysis of the

validation process training of the inspectors in new methods, and ensuring the organization

retains up-to-date analytical capacity with the technological development in nuclear science

field.

10 | P a g e

4. Cooperation with Member States

I. Information sharing mechanisms

The IAEA comes from a position of strength in working for nuclear non-proliferation majorly

because it relies on good information sharing with its member states. Thus; such mechanisms

help in the exchange of the relevant data, technical know-how and best practices in regard to; the

operation of the safeguards system, thereby making this system more effective. The main form of

communication that is followed is the State System of Accounting for and Control of Nuclear

Material (SSAC) where states provide reports on their nuclear activities and stocks from time to

time (Rauf & Persbo, 2020). This system is accompanied with the Additional Protocol that

enhances non-snapshot based sharing of information, including but not limited to research and

development in nuclear fuel cycle related facilities that do not possess nuclear material. The

IAEA has also adopted e-enabled communication processes to conduct information exchange

with a view of improving the timelines of submitting safeguards-related information using

instruments like the State Declaration Portal among others (Jones, 2019). In addition to that; the

agency holds technical meetings, workshops, and training meetings for the sharing of

information among the member states and IAEA‟s technical team. The main types of these

forums include safeguard implementation and advanced technologies used in the nuclear sector

that foster common appreciation of threats and responses to nuclear verification (Kurokawa &

Kaneko, 2020). The third critical exchange of information entails the IAEA‟s Incident and

Trafficking Database (ITDB), which enables states to both notify the IAEA as well as retrieve

information on incidents of illicit trafficking, and any other unauthorized activities concerning

nuclear and radioactive materials (Lustig, 2020). Thus, although these mechanisms have

enhanced cooperation and information sharing to a certain extent, some issues are still evident

with regard to the timely and comprehensive dissemination of information across all the member

countries, including the restricted domain that concerns the nations‟ security concerns. However,

problems of unequal development of technical infrastructure and availabilities of resources in

AMR can affect the success of such information exchange efforts. Responding to these tasks

with the help of capacity-building measures as well as development of international cooperation

is the key to the continuation of the IAEA‟s safeguards system as a robust, efficient and credible

one. The further enhancement and development of these mechanisms for contending with new

technological developments and threats are critical; in the IAEA‟s continuing work to stem

nuclear proliferation and encourage the use of nuclear energy for non-dangerous purposes. Thus;

this well-developed information-sharing system not only supports the agency‟s verification

work, but also enhances non-proliferation norms for member countries.

II. Capacity building programs

Awareness building activities or capacity building programs are an integral part of the IAEA

cooperation with member states, with the basic objective of better placing states in a position to

better comprehend, develop and initiate proper system of safeguards or implementing security

measures in the domain of nuclear energy. These programs are particularly useful for the

11 | P a g e

developing nations and nations of the third world that are newly exploring nuclear energy; in a

bid to annihilate the technological and specialists gap in nuclear administration. Training

courses, workshops and fellowships of the IAEA provides nuclear safeguards, security, and

safety coverage, courses which include; these are practical exercises on the utilization of

safeguards apparatus, sessions on the auditing of nuclear substance, and seminars on the

incorporation of national legal systems on the use of atomic energy. This agency also offers

technical support in the development and enhancement of the SSAC which is profoundly crucial

in safeguards (Abraham & Harling, 2020). The use of e-learning sites and distance learning

programs; have also increased the participation of these capacity building exercises and lifelong

learning opportunities. The INIR of the IAEA offers global evaluations and advice for any

emergent nuclear power nation highlighting the infrastructural requirements which the nation

lacks or the further training and academic education the nation needs (Muller, 2019). In the same

sense, the agency also supports knowledge brokering via the Coordinated Research Projects

(CRPs), whereby specialists from various states deal with assigned themes in separate

researches. Thus; these capacity building initiatives, do not only contribute to a better

implementation of safeguards themselves but also contribute to the development of a culture of

safety and security in the field of nuclear. However, some issues still persist in addressing the

sustainable capacity development especially in the nations that are less endowed, or those, which

political inclination keeps on changing from time to time (Bensahel 2020). In improving the

situations described above, one can see that the success of the IAEA in building long-term

partnerships and designing programs that are unique to the needs of every country is very

important in the advancement of technology. This approach makes sure that the capacity building

interventions made are efficient and sustainable thus improving the global nuclear security and

non-proliferation systems.

III. Technical assistance initiatives

IAEA Technical Cooperation Programs help member states in their pursuits of civil uses of the

nuclear energy while at the same time possessing the necessary safeguards responsibilities.

These launches comprise a wide range of fields such as; atomic energy, medical, colonial,

irrigation, and monitoring. The primary means by which this assistance is provided is the

Technical Cooperation Program which ensures that projects are adapted to target countries‟

requirements and objectives (Muller, 2019). In the area of nuclear energy, the IAEA supports

countries desiring or already having nuclear power programs in areas such as establishing

suitable facilities, safety measures, and governance structures (Stoiber & Pelzer, 2020).

Dependence assistance is selective for states with fully developed nuclear programs,

concentrating on the improvement of operating security, on the management of nuclear waste,

and on the plans for the closure of nuclear power stations. In the framework of its Program of

Action for Cancer Therapy (PACT); the IAEA contributes to the strengthening and development

of the usage of nuclear techniques, in identification and treatment of cancer. Examples of

radiation use are in the case of pest control and improved crop yields which support food

production in many developing nations (Johnson, 2020). Applications include; environmental

12 | P a g e

isotope hydrology for water use in purposes of water resource and nuclear environmental

monitoring for polluting agents and impacts of the climate. The IAEA also has advisory and

support role; in the enhancement of the authority responsible for regulation and the development

of nuclear safety and security frameworks. These undertakings have immensely shifted the uses

of nuclear activities for peace all across the globe; however, there are hurdles that are still seen in

equally sharing help and within development and no-proliferation duality (Bensahel, 2020). As a

result; the agency always seeks to improve the results and the utilization of its technical

cooperation activities; with regard to new technologies and the development of the needs of the

member state. The technical cooperation programs of the IAEA focus on capacity building for

sustainable development and on the use of nuclear technology for the member states in

accordance with safety and security to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. This way, the

nuclear technology is properly integrated in a manner that will promote the development as well

as the stability of the entire world.

IV. Dispute resolution processes

On the next level; the IAEA has had a significant role in forging out mechanisms and forms of

dispute solving, concerning the implementation of safeguards and commitments involving non-

proliferation. These processes are critical in addressing any breaches of the safeguards system as

well as in states or among the member states disputing with the agency or with each other.

Regarding conflict resolution, the main method involves its diplomatic resolution as the IAEA

acts as the technical facilitator (Newman & Zaring, 2021). When there are disparities or samples

indicating possible non-observance, the IAEA starts with negotiations with the concerned state to

resolve questions and provide with further elucidations. If the problem exists unresolved, then it

might go to the Board of Governors for consideration. To address non-compliance the Board has

the power to ask a state directly to take certain actions and in more severe circumstances refer

the matter to the UN Security Council (Fischer & Szasz, 2020). The IAEA‟s activities in

countering disputes are aimed at being fair, open and resolved based on analytical data.

Nonetheless; these processes can be highly susceptible to political influence, especially

pertaining to cases concerning possible WM major programs. The Iran nuclear case also shows

both the challenges and the possibilities of IAEA‟s role in the dispute-solve in the process of

negotiations lasting for years, enhanced verification and the introduction of the Joint

Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) (Fitzpatrick, 2021). The agency also maintains

communication; between member states; in order to act as a platform for prevention and solving

conflicts in connection with the use of nuclear power. The safeguards related disputes are solved

in the IAEA or by specially appointed commissions mostly successfully, however, the present

problematic aspects relate to the timely examination of disputes and the preservation of the

agency‟s authority in politically sensitive cases (Bensahel, 2020). The IAEA‟s ability to serve as

an independent mediator is mainly based on its technical experience and objective mandate,

which vary among the members of the organization. This way; the IAEA contributes to the

reduction of tensions as well as ensures fulfillment of international nuclear agreements, through a

13 | P a g e

more organized and systematic manner. This role is important not only against the background of

the non-proliferation regime, but also in general for the world‟s security and stability.

5. IAEA's Role in Iran

I. Monitoring nuclear program

The IAEA has been instrumental in scrutinizing Iran‟s nuclear program; because it is a

preeminent global organization responsible for supervising compliance with non-proliferation

treaties. Achievements and difficulties can be noted in IAEA activities in relation to Iran where

IAEA is trying to act transparent and to build trust in the context of the strengthening nuclear

energy relations in the region and global political rivalry. These have contributed to outlining the

international community‟s policy approaches based on accurate information concerning Iran‟s

nuclear activities that the agency has unveiled (Cirincione & Wolfsthal, 2020). Nonetheless, the

advancement of IAEA work in Iran has not been without controversy; there are indeed moments

that reveal that IAEA has been accused of having bias by either the Iranian side, or the western

side depending on the period of time. Another issue that has been posing significant difficulties

for the IAEA in regard to monitoring Iran‟s nuclear program; has been the problem of having

physical access to all necessities. This has often entailed coaxing and undertaking very hard

diplomatic lobbying to facilitate the execution of the required full-fledged inspections. Another

challenge that has affected the agency‟s ability to discharge its mandate appropriately is the

dynamism of Iran‟s nuclear program not to mention the nation‟s occasional reluctance to provide

full collaboration (Albright & Stricker, 2020). Still; the IAEA remains presents in Iran and

continues to present regular reports of the state of Iran‟s nuclear activities. The inspections on

Iran‟s nuclear program; have also underlined the IAEA that technologies as well as the creativity

of methods in verifying, remain a central aspect of its work. The agency has also experienced a

change in approaches due to Iran‟s improvement of its nuclear program hence increasing the

effectiveness of monitoring and supervision. This has involved aerial surveillance; soil, water,

gas and other progressive measures to look for signs of perceived latent business or production

(Fitzpatrick, 2021). Thus; IAEA experiences in Iran have also provided the basis for developing

new approaches, to applying safeguards that may be used in other cases in the world. In addition,

experience with the IAEA‟s role to monitor the Iranian nuclear program demonstrated that the

process of the verification is closely connected with the political factor.

II. Implementing Joint Comprehensive Plan

Very actively the IAEA has participated in practical activities connected with implementing the

Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or the Iran nuclear deal. If, however, the western powers

wanted to rein in Iran‟s nuclear program, this was the deal that was reached in 2015 to try to

achieve that goal in exchange for the removal of sanctions. IAEA has evidently had a busy and

tasks filled mandate to undertake under the provisions of JCPOA whereby the agency has had to

engage in routine monitoring and inspection, compiling reports to the global community. The

JCPOA remains one of the practical tests of the IAEA‟s technical understanding and diplomatic

14 | P a g e

dexterity as it has been regulating the political sphere and nuclear non-proliferation measures

(Cirincione & Wolfsthal, 2020). The agency‟s activities have been important; in this regard, in

furnishing the required vetting and validation, to ensure the honesty of the bargain entered into.

Another problematic aspect ever since the adoption of the JCPOA has been; the monitoring and

verification of the Iranian side‟s obedience, of the agreed upon constraints, on their nuclear

projects. This entails the IAEA to undertake frequent assessments of Iran‟s nuclear installations;

particularly enriched uranium facilities, research reactors as well as manufacturing facilities for

centrifuges. This entails that the agency has had to put in place sophisticated monitoring tools to

monitor Iran in respect to the nuclear agreement as well as observe for any violations (Albright

& Stricker, 2020). Furthermore, Iran had committed to certain technical details of the JCPOA

that have been monitored and implemented by the IAEA among them; the limits of the amount

of enriched uranium or the levels to which it can be enriched. The agency‟s involvement in the

execution of the JCPOA; has also underlined the various and multidimensional aspects of

transparency and also the sharing of information in contemporary nuclear treaties and thus

accords. The agency has been assigned the duty of providing biennial reports of its findings to

both the IAEA Board of Governors as well as the United Nations Security Council as the world

revises Iran‟s compliance with the deal. Through this reporting system, confidence in the

agreement has been maintained and diplomacy used to address any issues or disagreement

(Fitzpatrick, 2021). Yet, the work of the IAEA has been criticized and politicized from different

actors which show the neutrality aspect of the IAEA is not easy to be achieved in the political

context.

III. Reporting on compliance issues

In reporting on compliance matters regarding Iran‟s nuclear program; the IAEA has been able to

fulfill a key aspect of its mandate; as a useful source of information to the international

community. These reports are thereby vital in formulation of international opinion about the

Iranian nuclear programs and also for discharging diplomacy therefore on non-proliferation

issues. The workflow of the agency is based on the principle of the reporting process, which is a

careful dance between maintaining the scientific nature of the information provided, on the one

hand, and observing the nature of political compromises on the other: as the result of its activity

can become critical for relations between countries and programs of security policy (Albright &

Stricker, 2020). Some of the papers reviewed by IAEA on Iran have been characterized by

controversies, which makes it rather difficult to present neutral reports in politically sensitive

issues. The managers reported one of the major obstacles of compliance reporting was to report

frequent and accurate information in the ambiguous context of Iran‟s nuclear program. Due to

the dynamic nature of the verification challenges, the IAEA has had to upgrade its reporting

systems with technological progress. Subheading this has involved the agency to employ

complicated analysis skills as well as keep high technical proficiency to effectively evaluate

Iran‟s adherence to its responsibilities (Fitzpatrick, 2021). Furthermore, the IAEA has faced

general reporting challenge due to its necessity to publish some detailed information while at the

same time ensure that some data is kept confidential since it can be used for wrong purpose.

15 | P a g e

Other issues raised by the IAEA have also focused more on reporting and especially in relation

to compliance issues exposed on the ability to communicate effectively especially in interpreting

technical results. The agency‟s reports frequently involve; composing matrices of scientific and

technical data that must be translated and addressed in a format understandable by policy makers

and hence the populace. This has also pushed the IAEA to enhance strategies in providing the

right communication of the agency‟s assessments and conclusions alongside potential

misinterpretations or politicization of the agency conclusions (Cirincione & Wolfsthal, 2020).

Political influences and inconsistent reports‟ reception have become a defining factor of both its

credibility and effectiveness in reporting compliance matters or not.

IV. Impact on global diplomacy

The IAEA deals with legal aspects of disputes by providing mechanisms of solving concerns; on

issues to do with safeguards in addition to, compliance with and fulfillment of non-proliferation

measures. These are indispensable for preserving the soundness of the safeguards system and for

settling the disputes which may arise between the agency and one or more member states or

between the latter only. The major means of dealing with the problem is through diplomatic

process, although the IAEA plays the role of the technical-coordinator (Newman and Zaring,

2021). In the cases where difficulties or concerns over non-compliance are observed, the IAEA

starts with dialogue with the State concerned, asks for clarification and/or further information.

Should the problem persist it may be referred to the Board of Governors for their deliberation on

the same. The Board has powers to demand that a state does something regarding non-

compliance and in the worst-case, report that state to the UN Security Council (Fischer & Szasz,

2020). The IAEA‟s processes are of dispute resolution and aimed to be fair, non-political and

depending on facts and figures. However, the efficiency of these processes can be affected by

political motives, especially if the case is linked to the prohibited WP programs. The IAEA has

further proved its potential in the Iran nuclear case in which there has been a series of

negotiations and physical measures like enhanced accreditation followed by the signing of the

JCPOA (Fitzpatrick, 2021). It also provides for negotiations and sharing of information; between

member states involving, matters with nuclear participation and conflict resolutions. The IAEA

has been successful in its practice of employing the methods of non-violent protection of

interests, safeguard-related disputes that remain problematic after their decision by the agency

are still resolved, though timely and efficiently are still an issue and maintaining the IAEA‟s

credibility in politically sensitive cases is also an issue (Bensahel, 2020). Theoretically, the

IAEA can come up with proposals that are acceptable to the parties due to its reputation for non-

aligned mediation as well as technical knowledge. Because of this kind of mediation, the IAEA

has been able to reduce conflicts and ensure that countries to the nucleus agreement adhere to the

rules set by the agency. This role is essential; both for the success of the non-proliferation regime

and also for the improvement of the situation in the world and thus security.

16 | P a g e

6. North Korea and IAEA

I. Historical involvement

IAEA specifically has had close and sometimes strained relations with North Korea having been

involved in monitoring the country‟s nuclear program for a long time. This history is actually

multifaceted; it provides useful lessons on, the problems of nuclear disarmament together with

weaknesses of the safeguards systems. The IAEA started its interaction with North Korea

decades ago when the latter joined the agency and signed the safeguards agreement. First of all,

this relationship appeared to be useful in advancing the idea of peaceful nuclear use and Non-

Proliferation Treaty implementation (Acton & Hibbs, 2019). However, when the North Korean

nuclear program escalated, the task of the IAEA to verify Pyongyang‟s compliance proved to be

increasingly difficult. The above account shows that one of the pivotal moments in the agency‟s

relations with the North Korea in involved cooperation to trace, and which ended in the

beginning of the 90s when the IAEA realized some of the declared by the North Korea facts did

not match its data. This resulted to a line of special inspections and escalated review activity

aimed at ascertaining North Korea‟s compliance with its safeguards agreement. The interest of

the IAEA and North Korean global nuclear activities are reported below; although the IAEA

demanded strict inspections, and it‟s reporting of contradictions it could not recognize was an

essential factor for international attention to North Korean nuclear activities. Nevertheless, these

actions also caused conflicts with the international community and further to a critical turning

point which again radically changed the geopolitical situation in the region of Northeast Asia –

The Korean peninsula crisis. Another interesting aspect of the IAEA‟s relationship with North

Korea, it is the number of years that have passed since the cooperation began, as well as the fact

that this specific case shows how the interconnection between the differently-tendered

verification is work within political strategies and international relations. When managing to

embark on the implementation of its mandate, the agency was progressively forced into playing

one political faction against the other and at the same time being trapped in contradictory

narratives of the North Korea nuclear program. This placed considerable tension on the IAEA‟s

capacity to remain neutral as well as to effectively serve as a verification organization (Burkart

& Vestergaard, 2021). Consequences of the agency‟s experiences in North Korea; have given

long-term impacts to the strategies that has been used to enhance nuclear non-proliferation

policies and to build sounder safeguard systems. In addition; the IAEA‟s relations with North

Korea, can be considered as one of the most discusses subjects in the development of the role of

international organizations; in the maintenance of global security. The constraints that the agency

has faced in ascertaining the truth in North Korea‟s nuclear activities have been followed by

thoughts of more stringent measures to enforce and better verification techniques.

II. Withdrawal from NPT

The start of North Korea‟s development of nuclear capabilities for weapons purpose was in 2003

when it withdrew from the NPT, thus also withdrawing from the IAEA and becoming a major

example of noncompliance with rules supplementing the treaty. This unfortunate act raised a cut

17 | P a g e

throat challenge before the international nuclear regime and underlined the drawbacks of the

current model of non-proliferation. The process of withdrawal started in 1993 when North Korea

for the first time declared its desire to leave the NPT but was then suspended after signing the

talks with the United States. The last pull out in 2003 was after there were heightened tensions

and especially accusations of still engaging in hidden nuclear exercises (Acton & Hibbs, 2019).

This decision had depleting effects on the IAEA capacity to investigate and oversee North

Korea‟s nuclear undertaking which essentially kicked out the agency from the country. Thus, the

IAEA could not react with sufficient force due to legal and political limitations in response to

North Korea‟s withdrawal from the NPT. Thus, on one hand, the agency remained insisting on

its right and, at the same time, its duty to enforce the safeguards in North Korea; on the other

hand, its capability was rather limited. This meant that there was a major information deficit

among the international community pertaining to the existence and nature of North Korea‟s

nuclear program (Burkart & Vestergaard, 2021). Due to the limitations in access to the country,

the IAEA had to rely more often on satellite images, information obtained from IC and OSINT,

and the information provided by the member states on changes in North Korea‟s nuclear

activities. It was demonstrated with the new approaches to verification that there was a need for

stronger and more flexible protection measures due to non-observance and withdrawal from the

international treaties. Two periods of the time-line focused on North Korea‟s decision to

withdraw from the NPT which also raised significant issues about the usefulness of the treaty

and the compliance with the non-proliferation norms by the international community. The case

illustrated; how some countries may utilize the withdrawal from NPT; to leverage their nuclear

program forward, while not being prompted by the treaty. This led to discussions on the

necessity of changes to the NPT regime and on the emergence of the other measures that could

prevent and punish withdrawals from the Treaty (Perkovich 2019). These talks were

accompanied by the active participation of the IAEA; which offered methodological and

advisory support based on the experiences obtained during the interaction with North Korea.

Additionally; North Korea‟s action and its decision to withdraw from the NPT, affected regional

and international security in a number of ways.

III. Monitoring challenges

The IAEA‟s monitoring work has encountered considerable obstacles when it comes to the

verification of North Korea‟s nuclear program, especially after the latter‟s secession from the

NPT. Some of these challenges have been a technical pull on the agency through complexity and

have served as a wakeup call, that germinating new ideas for nuclear safeguards in the age ahead

cannot be activated, or overhauled without substantial technical enhancements. Among those

challenges the primary one that can be identified is an inability to investigate North Korean

nuclear sites directly, due to which the IAEA depends on satellite images and other methods

(Acton & Hibbs, 2019). This has greatly affected the ability of the said agency in giving proper

and timely assessment of the nuclear program of North Korea which further gave much room for

guessing in terms of capabilities of the country. One of the most difficult tasks has been

information analysis involving the intelligence received from the member states and the data

18 | P a g e

from the public domain. Due to this, the IAEA has had to build complex analytical capacities to

distinguish the reliability and relevance of this information, and at the same time remain neutral

and objective (Burkart & Vestergaard, 2021). This has called for moderation in the usage of all

types of information sources while also preventing biases or, even worse, manipulations in the

processes of the agency‟s assessment. North Korea has also advanced its nuclear and missile

programs at a very alarming rate and this has also been a thorn in the flesh of IAEA especially as

far as monitoring is concerned. The agency has had to; constantly shift its focus in the

verification approaches they use to overcome new technologies and the changes; in risks of

proliferation. This has involved measures aimed at observing actions concerning uranium

enrichment, plutonium reprocessing, and the probable creation of thermo nuclear weapons (Kim,

2020). Thus; the IAEA‟s capability to track and gauge these developments; has been vital in

providing information on international policy measures and diplomatic strategies, concerning the

North Korean nuclear issue. Moreover, the IAEA has some problems in preserving accesses to

the specific scientific and technical data about the N program of the DRM because inspections

have not been performed for years. This as has gotten the agency to devise measures of how it

can continue to refine and store information about North Korea‟s nuclear activities that it seldom

receives (Perkovich, 2019).

IV. Potential future engagement

Future interaction between the IAEA and North Korea is one of the most prospective issues and

concerns of the world community. Regarding the current situation the main challenges should be

noted, albeit the future discourse on the possible roles the IAEA could play in latter arms control

with N. Korea are also discussed. If there was to be further participation in the future, it would

probably need to be carried out on this guarded, step by step basis due to the existing animosity

and decades-long lack of trust between the leadership of the Democratic People‟s Republic of

Korea and the rest of the international society (Acton & Hibbs, 2019). IAEA can be a significant

asset for; designing and executing verification measures in perspective of agreements; mainly

due to its technical knowledge and prior experience in North Korea‟s nuclear program. One of

the possible scenarios of its further interaction could be related to the IAEA engaging in some of

the first steps in the confidence-building process between the DPRK and the global society. Such

action may have entailed minimal inspection or monitoring processes with the intention of

gauging initial information concerning North Korea‟s nuclear power as well as nuclear

installations (Burkart & Vestergaard, 2021). Having said that; such steps, could lay the

foundation in belie to future and potentially elaborate the concept of checking; as well as offer

crucial information to diplomacy negotiations and policies. The last possible type of a future

IAEA involvement with North Korea could be a provision of the agency helping to apply nuclear

technology in the countries of the world for peaceful purposes if the political situation will let the

states work together. Such applications may be in areas such as; generation of medical isotopes,

research in agriculture or environmental scanning. These engagements could therefore be used

more as a process of socialization and a way of providing reassurance and thus possible benefits

of peaceful nuclear cooperation, while also nurturing a presence in order to effectively monitor,

19 | P a g e

observe and verify, in anticipation for a future when that might be needed as well (Kim, 2020).

In future interactions with North Korea the IAEA is also likely to have spearheaded the creation

of fresh verification tools and methods in order to deal with North Korea‟s nuclear program. This

could include such areas as; sophisticated telemetry schemes, great sampling techniques, new

ideas and also methods in the implementation of safeguards. Some of the following agency

experiences and lessons learned from previous attempts at verification of North Korea‟s nuclear

activities could have been useful in these developments, thereby resulting into better

verifications (Perkovich, 2019).

7. Nuclear Security Measures

I. Preventing nuclear terrorism

Non-state actors possessing nuclear materials or nuclear weapons would be disastrous; which is

why the IAEA is involved in combating nuclear terrorism. The work of the agency in this sphere

is rather broad and includes many activities that cover the issues of developing the international

guidelines and standards, as well as technical assistance in implementing the changes in member

states, offering the training on the problems. Among the major priorities of the IAEA‟s nuclear

security work is the enhancement of physical protection of nuclear materials and related facilities

globally. This entails the advancement of the protection of these installations and nuclear

material in transit through the provision of stringent security measures among others (Bowen &

Chalmers, 2019). Another goal is to improve nuclear security regimes; on the international level

and contribute to the improvement of measures that will be taken in the countries of the world, to

prevent nuclear threats. Another essential dimension of the IAEA‟s counter-terrorism activities;

is the battle against the smuggling of nuclear and/or radioactive materials. The agency collects

information of events related to acquisition, provision, possession, use, transfer or disposal of

nuclear and other radioactive materials without proper authorization. This information-sharing

mechanism enables the member states to understand the existing trends and areas of risks for its

nuclear security system (Butler & Mukhatzhanova, 2020). Also; IAEA offers capacity-building

assistance and control and detection equipment to members; to improve their ability to address

cases of nuclear smuggle at borders and other strategic sites. The IAEA also continues engaging

in the strengthening of nuclear security culture among the key subjects; as people also matter in

the fight against the use of atomic energy, for terrorism purposes. It involves providing direction

on nuclear security learning as well as concern and teaching techniques regarding personnel‟s

reliability and security threats from insiders (Crawford, 2020). The actions in this sphere of work

are headed by the goals of providing Nuclear Security for facilities and people, who work in

these facilities, using nuclear materials or being experts in Nuclear Security field. In addition; the

IAEA has the major function of providing leadership of cooperation, among states in dealing

with the nuclear security concerns. This includes; hosting international conference on nuclear

security, sharing of information with other international organizations, encouraging other

organizations at national/international level involved in nuclear security (Lustig, 2020).

20 | P a g e

II. Securing nuclear facilities

IAEA has the major responsibility of encouraging and providing assistance in the security of

nuclear facilities worldwide given the fact that such facilities may act as soft targets for acts of

terrorism and thus pose a serious threat. In this capacity; the agency‟s activities entail; systematic

efforts to provide for comprehensible guidelines and recommendations on physical protection of

nuclear installations against; sabotage, theft, and related security risks. Such attempts are

essential in guaranteeing the physical security of Nuclear power stations, research reactor and

fuel cycle facilities from external and internal threats (Cometto & Hanlon, 2019). Some of these

guidelines involve; layout and installation of security systems, security check points and also

application of improved security technologies and systems of monitoring. Another problem of

securing nuclear facilities, which also merges with the second one, is the discrepancy between

security objectives on the one hand and operational factors on the other. In order to deal with

sometimes conflicting priorities, the IAEA cooperates with its members to elaborate the person‟s

integrated propositions. This includes measures such as advocating for the idea of „security in the

design which implies the integration of security principles in the conception and planning of the

facility (Bowen & Chalmers, 2019). In this way; the identified approach can effectively prevent

threats and minimize security risks; contributing to the facility‟s improvement in general

protection from possible threats. It also supports member states in mitigation and improvement

of physical protection of the currently existing nuclear facilities. This involves undertaking peer

review missions for instance International Physical Protection Advisory Service (IPPAS) which

provides consultation on the ways of enhancing implementation of the international standards of

nuclear security. These missions assist in evaluating capabilities for nuclear security in a country

and formulating the course of actions that may be needed for the improvement (Butler &

Mukhatzhanova, 2020). Moreover; it provides training courses and seminars; to improve

capacities of the national administrations and the managers of, the facilities in the field of proper

security measures‟ application. In addition; the IAEA has a major role and function in the

facilitation of cooperation and exchange of information on nuclear facility protection. This

involves; helping countries share experiences on implementation of security policies and also

disseminating amongst; the member states information on what has been learned by each country

as well as coordinating the research and development questions on new security threats.

III. Combating illicit trafficking

The IAEA is involved in combating the illegal trade in nuclear and other radioactive materials as

this is an important factor that is considered as being dangerous due to the possibility of such

substances being transported across borders. Here, the agency‟s functions are diverse, and

include the construction of detection and interdiction capacities, support for international

cooperation, and management of an (inter-)national database on trafficking occurrence. Some of

the ways used by the IAEA in the fight against ITR include the Incident and Trafficking

Database (ITDB) that is a database of events involving the illicit acquisition, supply, possession,

use, transfer and disposal of nuclear and other radioactive materials (Lustig, 2020). This resource

21 | P a g e

assists the member states to; evaluate threats, which are related to; trafficking and determine

specific measures to eliminate such threats. The IAEA also supports in technical areas members‟

states in an effort to improve their ability in assessing trafficking attempts. This includes such

activities as delivering training courses for border agencies and police, and giving information

for the usage of radiation detection installations at the significant flows of people, goods and

vehicles like airports, seaports and land borders (Butler & Mukhatzhanova, 2020). The goal of

the agency in this sector strives to put a net across the world and place deterrent measures that

will frustrate such persons from transporting nuclear or radioactive products across borders.

Concerning another vital aspect of the IAEA work in countering CBRNE smuggling; are its

efforts in enhancing national legislations and advocating for international legal mechanisms. It is

important for member states to respect and fully domesticate all the existing and applicable

international conventions whereby the agency recommends that respective national legislation

that should criminalize nuclear smuggling activities include the International Convention for the

Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism (Bowen & Chalmers, 2019). Thus; the IAEA

contributes to building a more efficient system of preventing proliferation and combating nuclear

smuggling, due to the coordination of the legal framework and the strengthening of the

cooperation between states in this area. In addition; the IAEA has a significant role in more

general efforts at the international level; to confront the source problems of trafficking and the

possibly associated intentions of the smuggling process.

IV. Emergency preparedness and response

A central function of the IAEA is to foster and organize the aversion capability for and

consequence management of nuclear and radiological contingencies globally. In a similar way,

knowing that EPR plays a big role in reducing the potential impacts of experienced & intended

adverse occurrences the agency tries to enhance national and international preparedness for such

an event. Thus; one of the significant organizational accomplishments of the IAEA in this sphere

is the promulgation of international safety standards and codes; relating to reactor emergency

preparedness and response. These standards give the member states guidelines on how to

develop and sustain effective EPR that include aspects such as emergency planning, response

organization, and public information and communication (Parker, 2020). These guidelines are

reviewed and updated from time to time to include past experiences as well as observing the new

technologies in handling emergencies. The agency also gives substantial Cooperative Technical

Assistance focusing on capacity building of the member states in EPR development and

improvement. This consists of delivering training events and educational seminars for emergency

response personnel, policy-makers and other officials, in addition to providing expert missions to

review and enhance a nation‟s EPR arrangements (Crawford, 2020). International response is

organized by the Incident and Emergency Centre of the IAEA which acts as an surrogate center

in the event of a nuclear or radiological event. IEC runs continuously and can readjust rapidly if

necessary and rapidly assemble professional help and coordinate the flow of information

between the concerned countries and the global community. Another strand of the IAEA‟s

activities in the field of emergency preparedness and response involves; the enhancement of

22 | P a g e

cooperation at an international level. International Throwable agency also arranged many

exercises and drills wherein several countries are participating which provide them with a

method of cross border collaboration and its improvement. These activities are crucial in

preparing an international response to nuclear or radiological incidents that cross borders (Butler

& Mukhatzhanova, 2020). IAEA also has a network of contact persons in member states for the

provision and sharing of information and coordination in case of an emergency. Moreover; the

IAEA has a significant responsibility of establishing and also sustaining approaches for technical

tools and hence systems for the response to emergencies. This comprises the International

Radiation Monitoring Information System (IRMIS) through which the data on the monitoring of

radiation can be exchanged on a real-time basis.

8. Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy

I. Promoting civilian applications

The IAEA also has an important mission; of developing the use of nuclear energy for peaceful

purposes only, primarily because it understands the advantages of nuclear technologies; in many

areas that are unrelated to electricity production. The activity of the agency in this area is based

on the statement of the “missions and objectives” of the IAEA, according to which the agency is

to „„promote the peaceful uses of nuclear energy for the benefit of mankind and to help

accelerate and enlarge its contribution to a better world. ” As for specific actions aimed at the

furthering of civilian applications of nuclear power, the IAEA employs the system of technical

cooperation, which aim is This program entails covering the broader category; it touches on

areas of human health, food and agriculture, water, and the environment. For medical purposes;

in the sphere of human health, it contributes to employing nuclear techniques in cancer

diagnostics and therapy and in radionuclide production for radiopharmaceuticals. One of the

agency‟s flagship projects is the Program of Action for Cancer Therapy more commonly known

as PACT; this project seeks to enhance capacity for cancer therapy in the developing world

including use of radiation medicine (Johnson, 2020). Likewise, in agriculture the IAEA

encourages the application of nuclear technology for enhanced varieties of crops, diseases

control, and quality of foods that is produced. These applications can go a long way in enhancing

the achievement of food security and sustainable food production especially; developing

countries, where issues to do with climate change and population growth are of concerns. The

additional key function of the IAEA is the support of the non-proliferation of nuclear energy in

the environmental control and care sphere. This covers assisting the member states to use nuclear

techniques to investigate climate change, audit water resources, and survey sea pollution (Stoiber

& Pelzer, 2020). Research and analytical services are made available through the environmental

laboratories of the agency in Monaco and Seibersdorf to help in combating environmental issues

in the world. In addition; the IAEA tries to achieve the full realization of the right to peaceful

uses of nuclear energy, while at the same time promoting the non-proliferation of nuclear

weapons and the safety of nuclear application. This includes; offering capacity-building on the

23 | P a g e

creation of; proper legal and institutional frameworks, acquaintance and volunteer advisory

services to the member states (Kurokawa & Kaneko, 2020).

II. Technology transfer programs

Indeed, technology transfer is an important task performed by the IAEA because the organization

understands the value of sharing the existing knowledge for the development of nuclear

technology in the non-proliferation states only and solely for the purpose of contributing to the

peace and wellbeing of the mankind all over the world. TT programs of the agency are intended

to narrow the gap between the industrialized and the developing world on nuclear technology

access/usage. These matters are particularly relevant; in trying to make nuclear science and

technology benefits properly spread; and contribute to the achievement of sustainable

development aims. IAEA‟s Technical Cooperation Program constitutes one of the major forms

of technology transfer which focuses on the development of member states‟ capabilities in

numerous nuclear related applications (Muller, 2019). This includes; energy planning, the

infrastructure for nuclear power and the uses of nuclear applications in the fields of health,

agriculture, and the environment. The IAEA‟s technology transfer also targets South-South and

triangular cooperation which is the exchange of experience and knowledge among the

developing countries. This approach acknowledges the fact that one country which is

experiencing similar developmental issues with another country can benefit from learning from

the latter on how they are dealing with such issues. The agency acting as a link to connect and

possibly interlink the member states and research institutions among other related parties, with

an aim of creating a platform on which research findings as well as joint research and

development cooperation can be achieved (Johnson, 2020). Such actions are useful for;

establishing successful capacities in the development countries and developing the permanent

expertise of indigenous nuclear. The other crucial component of the IAEA‟s technology transfer

programs deals with the offering of training and education. Several workshops, seminars, and

fellowship programs are conducted by the agency to improve knowledge and competence of

scientists, engineers and technicians of the developing nations (Kurokawa & Kaneko, 2020).

These activities span; reactor physics courses, nuclear safety and radiation protection, and also

medical as well as industrial uses of nuclear energy. Through investment in human resource

development the IAEA plays a key role in building the nucleus of the worldwide expertise in

nuclear technology and its utility for peaceful intents and purposes. In addition, the role of the

IAEA to the member states‟ technology transfer entails supplying them with equipment and

facilities to enhance their nuclear research and purposes. This encompasses; providing radiation

detecting apparatus, analyzing machines, and also other related accessories and thus materials

required for employing nuclear methods in different disciplines.

III. Safety standards development

Currently, the IAEA has a very important and active extra-regional function of establishing and

disseminating international norms for nuclear facilities‟ safety; personal protection against

radiation, nuclear and radioactive waste disposal as well as safe transport of radioactive materials

24 | P a g e

in international traffic. These standards are the fundamental foundations for a nuclear safety

system; in the world and it‟s necessary to guarantee the safe utilization of nuclear technology

globally. The process of developing an agency‟s safety standards is quite intensive and includes

consultation with the member states, other international organizations, and other specialists. It is

very effective in ensuring that the standards pertaining to nuclear power are the most up-to-date

and tailor-made to fit the current state of nuclear safety (Johnson, 2020). Almost every activity

and aspect related to the use of nuclear power can be regulated by the IAEA safety standards;

these include aspects such as power plant construction and operation, protection of radiation

exposure in medicinal use, and disposal of nuclear wastes. This study has also identified; one of

the major advantages of the IAEA‟s approach to the development of the safety standards – the

element of flexibility and evolution of the process; in response to the new threats and challenges.

To ensure that the agency has the best safety standards, it constantly reviews and develops the

safety standards from time to time to encompass: The lessons learnt from operational experience;

new research finding; technological advancement as well as the findings from the review of the

existing safety standards (Kurokawa & Kaneko, 2020). This dynamic process; also helps to make

sure that, the established standards are sufficient and would fit well to solve current and future

nuclear safety issues. The IAEA also focuses on; the coordination of national safety standards

with its standards, in order to attain a more coherent set of guidelines all over the world. IAEA

activities in the safety standard development also aim at identifying and elaborating on specific

safety aspects that relate to individual types of nuclear infrastructures and operations. This

includes the generation of specific safety standards for Research Reactors, Fuel Cycle Facilities

and Nuclear Decommissioning. The agency also offers support; on the handling and regulation

of used atomic sources, and hence decontamination and decommissioning procedures; that are all

part control and considerations of the nuclear fuel cycle, apart from generation of electricity

(Stoiber & Pelzer, 2020). The IAEA thus assists member states in establishing sound safety

measures for their nuclear programs since it offers cutting-edge and state-specific safety

information. In addition to this; the IAEA safety standards development process entails;

substantial measures with regards to the dissemination and promotion of these standards. Bureau

is responsible for training courses, seminars and expert missions aimed at; helping member states

in implementing the specified safety standards on national levels.

IV. Environmental impact assessments

The IAEA is also involved in the encouragement and facilitation of EIAs where nuclear

undertakings and projects are the focus. These are important tools that help in; evaluating and

predicting the possible impact of nuclear energy on the environment and therefore help in

determining how best one can develop and use nuclear energy, without damaging the

environment. Its activity in this context includes setting and delivering primarily guidelines and

methods for EIAs, technical support to the member states, and knowledge sharing and learning.

Another trend noted in the work of IAEA for the evaluation of environmental impacts is the type

of activities aimed at the globalization of approaches and methodological work carried out in

different countries and regions of the world (Nakatani, 2021). This strengthens; the basis for

25 | P a g e

comparability of environmental impacts across nuclear projects and supports sound decision-

making, as well as ensuring the population‟s trust. On a variety of phases of the nuclear

facilities‟ life cycle, including siting, design-construction, operation and decommissioning, the

IAEA provides recommendations on EIAs. Developing this coordinated method, all possible

environmental impacts can be taken into account and minimized at the stages of the nuclear

project‟s life cycle. As one of the core values, the agency also focuses on integrating

stakeholders‟ involvement throughout the entire EIA process, especially in the initial phases and

referring to the locals or environmental organizations. This inclusive approach makes it easier; to

notice and manage possible objective environmental issues and enhances the general

population‟s perception of nuclear projects. In addition to the emphasis on nonradioactive

sources of exposure, another critical aspect within the IAEA‟s missions connected to the

environmental impact assessments is the establishment and popularization of the new, efficient

approaches and methods of analysis and modeling. These are methods of evaluating the effects

of radiological hazards on ecosystems, estimating possible environmental repercussions of future

years, and estimation of synergistic effects of various centers in a definite geographic location

(Stoiber & Pelzer, 2020). It also fosters the deployment and utilization of post-operational

environmental assessment programs to confirm the efficiency of impact estimations and the

continuous preservation of the environment at nuclear plants all through the lifetime. In addition,

trans-boundary environmental impacts of nuclear activities are handled by the IAEA. The agency

is concerned with; the encouragement of information exchange and coordination on

environmental studies, particularly in relation to activities that may affect other countries. This

also involves providing community mobilization and Virginia services of consultation for the

neighboring countries entailing guidelines on the measures of implementing the existing

international conventions.

9. IAEA and Nuclear Disarmament

I. Verification of dismantlement

The IAEA is also involved in measures to confirm nuclear decommissioning; which an essential

aspect is of; disarmament of nuclear weapons globally. Administrated by an organization such as

the IAEA with knowledge in nuclear safeguards and verification approaches can be in a position

to supervise and verify all the dismantling of nuclear weapons and related establishments. There

is a difficulty in creating and applying methods of verification; that would guarantee compliance

and would also not violate national security secrets. The IAEA has been proactive in finding

solutions to these challenges it has been involved in coming up with ways of verifying the

nuclear disarmament while bearing in mind the issue of confidentiality (Carranza, 2019). Such

efforts include; the establishment of techniques and processes for the certification of nuclear

weapons dismantlement; while preserving the stability of the weapons‟ designs. The verification

of the dismantlement by IAEA is not limited to the nuclear weapons complexities but ranges into

other nuclear fuel areas such as the military nuclear facilities conversion to civil uses. This

26 | P a g e

means that states need to establish procedural policies to ensure broad verification in all aspects

of the dismantlement procedure starting with declarations through to final affirmation of a

facility‟s closure or conversion to another use (Lodgaard, 2019). Understanding the agency‟s

practices in the use of safeguards at civilian nuclear facilities can give comparable foundation to

import practices of using the approaches during military nuclear dismantlement verification. To

elaborate on the IAEA‟s work in dismantlement verification; one needs to focus on the role of

the organization in developing a worldwide trust in disarmament. This includes enlarging the

circle of participants in the process of verification and, to the extent possible, providing the

public with information about the verification activities (Jenkins, 2021). As an impartial

organization consisting of technical experts, it provides credibility in dismantlement verification

processes; therefore, they can help gain the confidence of participating states and contribute to

the realization of international nuclear disarmament objectives. In addition; the IAEA restores an

important function in the area of capacity building and knowledge sharing; with regard to the

verification of dismantlement. To this effect, it conducts training programs, workshops and

technical meetings where progress and experiences made in this type of agencies is disseminated.

These activities contribute to building up a stockpile of competent knowledge in dismantlement

verification so as to have the international community ready to carry out a massive process of

disarmament, whenever the political circumstances favor it (Mukhatzhanova, 2020).

II. Fissile material disposition

The IAEA has one of the more important functions in relation to dealing with the issues arising

from the management of fissile materials that are the core of nuclear disarmament /non-

proliferation regimes. HEU and plutonium are weapons usable materials that present

considerable proliferation dangers and have to be effectively controlled to submit, to ultimate

disposal. Their activities in this category include the creation of dumping strategies to guarantee

that components acquired from retired nuclear weapons or leftover defense surpluses are indeed

excluded from being reintroduced into military uses or stockpiles while being safeguarded by an

international system. One of the major complexities in dealing with fissile material disposition is

to come up with a method of verifying the materials in order to tell how much there is and

whether it could be used to build weapons but without divulging the parameters of design. The

IAEA has been on the forefront in battling these technicalities; it has been involved in the

solution development, which may include aspects like; information barrier technologies and

attribute verification systems. It is also involved in the process of inspecting and confirming of

down blending of highly enriched uranium to low enriched uranium for usage in civilian nuclear

power stations. Also the program of the „Megatons to Megawatts‟ between the United States and

Russia has been a quite successful example of reducing the piles of the weapons-grade fissile

materials. Such programs engage the IAEA in the process that enables it to monitor the programs

hence enhancing transparency in the process which enhances confidence amongst the

international community on the disposition process (Sagan & Valentino, 2021). Moreover, the

agency delivers assistance on how to properly and safely store fissile materials that still have not

received their final disposition, so as to reduce threats of their unlawful acquisition by persons

27 | P a g e

with a malicious intent as well as their diversion. The second and also a very significant facet of

the IAEA‟s work is the situation with fissile material disposition in regards to the promotion of

internationally accepted norms and practices. The agency plays a role of promoting sharing of

information and technical collaboration; among member states, which assists in the spreading of

knowledge and experience; concerning disposition technologies and verification procedures

(Mukhatzhanova, 2020). This entails calling technical meetings, workshops and training in order

to enhancement of global capabilities on fissile material management and disposition. Moreover,

IAEA serves as one of the key entities concerning long-term efforts of dealing with fissile

material disposition issues, such as disposition pathways for materials that cannot be recycled

into civil use in a straightforward manner.

III. Supporting arms control treaties

The nuclear non-proliferation regime utilizes the IAEA in a supporting function for the

management and monitoring of most of the treaties and agreements in relation to arms control

and their reduction. Although it does not enter into or enforce these treaties, the agency‟s

technical knowledge and verification assistance play a significant role in the fulfillment of these

treaties. A major focus the IAEA offers help in is in the area of safeguards, specifically

concerning the observance to the NPT or the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The safeguard

system of the agency acts as the main channel through which is ascertained that states, which

have not possessed nuclear weapons, are not using nuclear materials for constructing weapons

contrary to articles of the NPT. This entails work is critical in preserving non-proliferation

regime integrity and earning trust among the states parties. IAEA also has a major function in

regards to maintaining and strengthening regional treaties regarding prohibition of possession of

nuclear weapons for example nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties. Recipient states‟ safeguards

agreements with the agency enhance assurance regarding the compliance with treaty obligations

in these zones and also about the non-existence of nuclear weapon activities affecting the

neighboring nations. Also, involved in the negotiation and use of the bilateral arms control

agreements including the New START treaty of the United States of America and Russia.

Although not directly participating in the process of verification of such agreements, the agency

can bring in its expertise and experience in nuclear monitoring and verification technologies to

the framework and strategies designed for creating the most suitable means of verification. Yet

another area of focus of the IAEA‟s work in the realm of arms control is the issue of the ongoing

research and preparation; for employment of the verification equipment and methods, for use in

upcoming treaties regarding disarmament. This involves analyzing the fresh verification

methodologies used for dismantling of nuclear warheads, controlling the fissile materials and

transforming the military nuclear complex into the civilian ones (Jenkins, 2021). The provision

of the technical support for the NDT further contributes to improvement of the circumstances

which allow carrying out the more far-reaching agreements on the reduction of the arms in the

future. In addition; the IAEA enhances the aspirations of the general arms control treaties

agreements in the area of the field of Pull nuclear; through bolstering transparency as well as

other confidence-building steps. Some of the contributions include nuclear security, safety, and

28 | P a g e

the peaceful use of nuclear energy which contributing to the creation of the needed environment

to advance nuclear disarmament.

IV. Promoting global disarmament efforts

Majorly responsible for reporting on, and investigating the activities of non-members; the IAEA

stands out as an important global nuclear disarmament agency that offers; technical support to

membership, in the quest to achieve a nuclear free world. The agency and its role is mainly

conversed with non-proliferation and the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, however,

it is involved in carrying out of disarmament goals in several aspects. Nevertheless, one of the

principal tasks of the IAEA in regards to the issue of disarmament is the provision of

development of the technical requirements that would be aimed at the verification of the

measures related to nuclear disarmament. These comprise germinating and escalating

verification techniques, equipment, and approaches that could be useful in future disarmament

treaties (Jenkins, 2021). Thus; through the development of these technical capabilities; the IAEA

contributes to the emergence of the circumstances under which further and deeper stages of

disarmament, can be realized and be credible. It also plays a role in disarmament measures; in

relation to the nuclear safety and security. Thus, the IAEA assists in safeguarding the nuclear

materials and facilities thus directly addressing some of the major issues that have caused the

slow progress of disarmament process (Mukhatzhanova, 2020). This also comprises strategies

for; avoiding nuclear terrorism and also for the safe handling and disposal of material containing

any amount of nuclear material. Thus, minimizing these risks the IAEA contributes to a more

favorable environment for subsequent proposals on additional steps of disarmament. Another

very significant area of the IAEA in the framework of support for non-proliferation and

disarmament is work within a strategy of strengthening of transparency and confidence-building

among the states in the nuclear spheres. Safeguards system and verification, by the agency offers

important guarantee‟s for non-weapon use of atomic energy therefore eliminating the perception

of threats among nations (Carranza, 2019). This confidence-building function is therefore

central; for establishing the political environment, which is helpful in the progression of the issue

of disarmament. Moreover; it carries out continuous negotiation and cooperation with states

regarding disarmaments, by ages of its forums and technical meetings. Such conventions are

global forums; where specialists and governmental figures share information on current

tendencies and perspectives of nuclear non-proliferation. I believe that due to arrangements of

such interchanges and opportunities to share experience and ideas with other nations, the IAEA

helps to establish a community of people working for ending disarmament and demonstrate

professionalism in achieving this goal.

10. Challenges and Future Prospects

I. Emerging technologies and threats

The IAEA has a number of prospects and problems; in the regulation of new technologies and

threats in the nuclear sphere. There are also new proliferation threats and security issues; that

29 | P a g e

may come up with the development of nuclear technology, hence the need for constant shifts in

the agency‟s forms and methods. Among the problems, one can single out the development of

new enrichment and reprocessing technologies that can be applied in the framework of both

civilian programs and the creation of nuclear weapons. Such technologies such as laser

enrichment and pyro-processing are conceptual in nature, they are difficult to verify and

consequently bring to the table, new approaches and detection methods to safeguard by IAEA

(Miller, 2021). It means that the agency has to be always up to date regarding the availability and

potential of existing and prospective technologies in order to remain capable of preventing the

misuse of the nuclear materials and technologies. The last emerging issue is that the facilities are

also getting more connected digitally and therefore the risks of cyber threats. With the current

introduction of nuclear plants and construction of related nuclear facilities in the energy utility

sector heavily relying on digital systems, it is possible for them, and additional computer related

security measures to be easily penetrated by hackers, disruptors or any other bad actor, which

can jeopardize safety, security or the various safeguard protocols. The IAEA is keen on

providing solutions to these challenges by currently working on a document on cyber-security

for nuclear facilities as well as encouraging cooperation in this area (Chow & Solomon, 2021).

This encompasses actions to; improve the resistance of safeguard instrumentation and control

systems and evolution of integrated detection solutions, against cyber dangers in the nuclear

space. Several other issues of interest with relation to the IAEA include the application of

artificial intelligence or machine learning in overly Chap 7 Nuclear Safeguards and Verification.

Although these technologies are promising means to improve the effectiveness and productivity

of safeguards activities; they also require serious considerations in terms of; information

security, algorithms‟ openness and also possible spoofing or manipulation of AI systems. The

agency is highlighting the possibilities of increasing the use of AI and machine learning to

develop the agency‟s analytical function; while recognizing the moral questions that will arise, as

a result (Goldschmidt & Albright, 2019). Additionally, what measures the IAEA is to take also

depends on the potential influence of the new technologies in the related industries, for instance,

in the sphere of advanced manufacturing methods which might be used in creating the sensitive

nucleus of the nuclear components. The agency stated that; it is involved in a process of

examining the implications of these technologies, to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons

and the formulation of measures to take when so doing.

II. Budgetary and resource constraints

An important challenge that affects the IAEA organization is budgeting and resource constrains

which portray a challenge to the original goal and a translated mandate which the organization

has to fulfill in future. The IAEA has the additional roles that are accruing as the agency‟s

responsibilities expand to new issues including nuclear safety, security and nonproliferation

while the roles are laid down by its member states the agency lacks adequate funds to meet them

leading to strains between the agency‟s mandate and its capacity. The first problem that can be

distinguished concerns voluntary contributions as the major source of the agency‟s financing,

especially of many significant programs implementing cooperation in technical Aid, and nuclear

30 | P a g e

safety. However, this funding approach may result in imprevisibility and possible gaps in the

priority and important activities; questions regarding the impact of the large funders‟ agendas on

the agency (Hoenig, 2019). The IAEA has been seeking for ways and means of achieving the

diversification and the substantial improvement of the financial situation, but the problems

associated with the acquisition of sufficient and stable resources persist. Another important

question relates to; the increase in requests for the IAEA‟s services and assistance in many areas,

including; primarily, in the field of safeguards and safety, as well as in the context of the

development of the necessary capacities. Resultantly, as the number of countries embarking on

the nuclear energy journey rises, and as the technology continues to scale the heights of

sophistication, the agency finds itself in a position where undertaking more activities and

building a set of new competencies is virtually forced on it. Nevertheless, the agency‟s demands

are increasing whereas resources are limited, which hampers its operations in fulfilling all those

demands. This can sometimes prompt some hard choices on the part of societies regarding which

activities are to be emphasized and or which needs are to be met with scarce resources (Newman

and Zaring, 2021). The agency has been trying for some time to increase efficiency and

effectiveness focusing on such areas as the implementation of information technologies in its

work, and the search for new ways of organizing the delivery of programs and services but

overcoming the problem of the shortage of resources still poses a great difficulty. The IAEA also

experience problems in recruiting and maintaining eligible and qualified staff especially in

technical areas. Namely, the agency often lacks the necessary resources and possibilities to

attract the best employees and guarantee them decent salaries as well as long-term employment.

This can affect the IAEA‟s capacity to sustain the overall required due specialization to tackle

intricate technical obstacles and new advancements in the nuclear industry (Shaker, 2020). The

agency has been implementing measures to develop the human resources polices and staff

development programs but limited resources still remain an issue in this area.

III. Political obstacles to enforcement

It should be noted that the IAEA becomes exposed to substantial political risks; in the course of

enforcing measures related to nuclear non-proliferation and in the process of properly

implementing safeguards. These difficulties are evident; due to the agency‟s political

environment and the general characteristics of nuclear matters. The main challenge can be

attributed to the conflict of interest where on one hand countries have the sovereignty to decide

on their own policies while on the other hand international bodies superintend the same

countries. Several states are unwilling to allow the IAEA‟s comprehensive access to their nuclear

installation or to agree to even more rigorous verification if it is an issue of national security or

industrial spying (Bensahel, 2020). This might in turn restrict the agency‟s capacity to offer

compelling evidence; regarding the non-use and non-proliferation of nuclear energy; especially

when there are tape records of non-observance of the certain rules. Another major problem is

legal restraint that the IAEA faces; the ability to put that force that it requires into enforcing its

decision is not available to the IAEA. Even though, the agency can file a report to the UN

Security Council, it is the member states that make decisions on enforcement actions. This means

31 | P a g e

that the effectiveness of the implementations of the safeguards depends on the political will for

their enforcement, which makes the responses to the safeguards‟ violations unpredictable and

can compromise the credibility of the non-proliferation regime (Newman & Zaring, 2021). The

involvement of politics in nuclear matters particularly where IAEA is involved like the board of

governors level could complicate case on non-compliance and make them hard to solve in a

neutral manner. There are also problems that the IAEA has had to confront in maintaining its

„independent‟ status and being seen to be above political influence. Being a technical

organization that conducts its work in a political context, the agency is often on the diplomatic

„minefield‟ while, at the same time, having to remain politically neutral and produce politically

independent evaluations and recommendations. That is especially challenging in cases with well-

known states with a critical impact on geopolitics because stakeholders‟ pressure can interfere

with the agency‟s operations (Abraham & Harling, 2020). Thus, credibility and trust to all the

member states remain essential in the performance of IAEA‟s work but very difficult when

internationally the playing ground is highly polarized. Second, political factors that influence

international relations and regional security and stability are not in the favor of the IAEA, and

thus affect its ability to enforce the safeguards and limit the spread of nuclear technology.

IV. Strengthening non-proliferation regime

The enhancement of the international non-proliferation system is still an important problem and

goal of the IAEA. Some of the challenges include the following: With changing international

relations as well as the emerging nuclear threats, there is always the need for retrofitting of the

already existing framework. There are several areas that this approach needs to be strengthened:

promotion of the IAEA‟s verification capacity in response to the new proliferation threats. This

entails enhancing the detection systems employed and analysis approaches as well as broadening

the agency‟s informational base (Albright & Stricker, 2020). Currently, the IAEA in the process

of developing state-level approach to safeguards that is supposed to give a better picture and

more efficient approach to assessing a given state‟s nuclear activities. One particularly important

element of the effort is; the promotion of states parties‟ compliance with main non-proliferation

principles and key international treaties, including; the Additional Protocol in connection with

safeguards agreements. The Additional Protocol provides the IAEA broader rights regarding

acquisition of information and access to the sites much more efficiently as compared to the

safeguards, and is very effective in identifying any undeclared nuclear activities. Nevertheless,

not all countries have endorsed this crucial instrument, thus narrowing thoughts on this powerful

tool‟s global applicability (Hinderstein & Pomper, 2020). Thus, the IAEA still insists on the

universal ratification of the Additional Protocol and actively contributes to the promotion of the

idea of positive moving, verifications DPI and expectations of positive movements on the

Additional Protocol in order to enhance global confidence in the absence of weapons in civilian

nuclear programs. The tasks emerging from the activities of non-state actors; particularly the

threat of nuclear terrorism is another crucial area of enhancing the non-proliferation regime. The

IAEA has strategic importance in the nuclear security area since it is involved in; providing

leadership and support towards the improvement of arms control measures on nuclear security

32 | P a g e

among countries. This ranges from offering recommendations on the practical aspects of

safeguarding nuclear materials, assisting the process of enhancement of cooperation in the

application of relevant international legal norms and standards, and sharing of information

concerning nuclear security events (Bowen & Chalmers, 2019). In this regard; through its

activities in addressing these security threats, the IAEA contributes to filling the potential gaps in

the non-proliferation system and minimizing the threat of nuclear materials being used. Due to

its successful focus on all the above elements, the IAEA can be considered as highly effective in

improving the non-proliferation regime and reducing the risks of nuclear materials being used by

malefactors. Moreover, future studies need to focus on the particular agenda of non-proliferation/

nuclear security which entails a deeper analysis of the political and institutional factors. This

includes attempts to strengthen the IAEA and the Scope of its decisions as well as strengthen the

decision-making process of the IAEA and guarantee sufficient and stable funding for its

fundamental functions (Bajema & Duffield, 2021).

33 | P a g e

REFERENCE

Abdulla, A. S., & Lyons, P. B. (2019). Strengthening the International Atomic Energy Agency:

Progress and challenges. Nonproliferation Review, 26(3-4), 341-360.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10736700.2019.1692025

Abraham, I., & Harling, J. (2020). IAEA Safeguards in the 21st Century: Building trust through

verification. Journal of Strategic Studies, 43(6-7), 1039-1057.

https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2019.1656369

Acton, J. M., & Hibbs, M. (2019). North Korea's nuclear program: Past, present, and future.

International Security, 44(1), 7-35. https://doi.org/10.1162/isec_a_00347

Albright, D., & Stricker, A. (2020). Iran‟s nuclear program and the IAEA: Assessing verification

and monitoring. Arms Control Today, 50(1), 8-15.

https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.14436.83843

Bajema, N., & Duffield, R. (2021). The evolution of IAEA safeguards: Adapting to new

challenges. Global Policy, 12(4), 563-572. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12941

Bensahel, N. (2020). The IAEA‟s role in nuclear non-proliferation: A critical assessment. Journal

of International Affairs, 73(2), 123-140. https://doi.org/10.2307/26760804

Bowen, W. Q., & Chalmers, H. (2019). The role of the IAEA in preventing nuclear terrorism.

Defense & Security Analysis, 35(3), 245-260.

https://doi.org/10.1080/14751798.2019.1645680

34 | P a g e

Burkart, K., & Vestergaard, C. (2021). The IAEA and North Korea: Confronting compliance

challenges. Asian Security, 17(3), 221-238.

https://doi.org/10.1080/14799855.2020.1760807

Butler, R., & Mukhatzhanova, G. (2020). Cooperative measures for nuclear security: IAEA

initiatives and member state participation. International Journal of Nuclear Security,

6(2), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.33415/ijns.v6i2.274

Carranza, M. E. (2019). IAEA and nuclear disarmament: Verification challenges and

opportunities. Contemporary Security Policy, 40(1), 108-126.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2019.1555865

Chow, B. G., & Solomon, J. (2021). The future of nuclear material accounting: Emerging

technologies and new approaches. Science & Global Security, 29(2), 102-119.

https://doi.org/10.1080/08929882.2021.1913549

Cirincione, J., & Wolfsthal, J. B. (2020). IAEA‟s role in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action

with Iran. Nonproliferation Review, 27(1-2), 85-98.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10736700.2020.1772906

Cometto, M., & Hanlon, S. (2019). Securing nuclear facilities: IAEA‟s role and challenges.

Progress in Nuclear Energy, 114, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2019.103097

Crawford, N. C. (2020). Preventing nuclear terrorism: IAEA measures and international

cooperation. Journal of Peace Research, 57(5), 598-610.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343319889775

35 | P a g e

Dorn, W., & Husseini, H. (2021). Monitoring nuclear facilities: IAEA inspection procedures and

technological advancements. Journal of Nuclear Materials Management, 49(3), 16-

30. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223131.2021.1903342

ElBaradei, M. (2019). Strengthening the non-proliferation regime: The role of the IAEA. Nuclear

Law Bulletin, 103, 17-30. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264357816-en

Fischer, D. A., & Szasz, P. C. (2020). IAEA's legal framework: Mandate and objectives.

International Law Studies, 96, 275-290. https://doi.org/10.36741/ilsc.v96i0.48

Fissile Materials Working Group. (2020). Tracking fissile materials: Strategies and challenges.

Science & Global Security, 28(3), 207-225.

https://doi.org/10.1080/08929882.2020.1745774

Fitzpatrick, M. (2021). The IAEA and the Iran nuclear deal: Ensuring compliance. Survival,

63(1), 75-92. https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2021.1875710

Garcia, D. (2020). The IAEA's verification systems: From theory to practice. Journal of

International Peacekeeping, 24(2), 179-196. https://doi.org/10.1163/18754112-

20200013

Goldschmidt, P., & Albright, D. (2019). Data analysis techniques in IAEA safeguards.

Nonproliferation Review, 26(3-4), 273-289.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10736700.2019.1690102

Heinonen, O., & Kelley, R. (2020). Discrepancies in nuclear material accounting: Case studies

and lessons learned. Journal of Nuclear Materials Management, 48(2), 14-28.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00223131.2020.1846532

36 | P a g e

Hibbs, M. (2021). Technology and equipment used in IAEA inspections: Current capabilities and

future needs. Nuclear Technology, 207(2), 159-172.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00295450.2021.1894976

Hinderstein, C., & Pomper, M. (2020). Safeguards agreements: Types, benefits, and challenges.

Arms Control Today, 50(3), 20-27. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.32468.96641

Hoenig, M. M. (2019). Organizational structure of the IAEA: Evolution and current state. Global

Governance, 25(3), 329-345. https://doi.org/10.1163/19426720-02503007

Jenkins, B. M. (2021). The IAEA and nuclear disarmament: Supporting global efforts. Journal of

Peace and Conflict Studies, 32(1), 58-74.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2021.1893354

Johnson, R. (2020). Promoting civilian applications of nuclear technology: IAEA initiatives.

International Journal of Nuclear Energy, 106, 112-123.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijne.2020.103366

Jones, P. (2019). IAEA safeguards and verification: Innovations and impacts. Journal of Nuclear

Science and Technology, 56(6), 521-533.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00223131.2019.1599375

Kerr, P. K., & Nikitin, M. B. D. (2021). Iran's nuclear program and the Joint Comprehensive

Plan of Action: The role of the IAEA. Congressional Research Service Report,

45633. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.11766.05445

37 | P a g e

Kim, H. J. (2020). The IAEA's involvement in North Korea: Past experiences and future

possibilities. Journal of East Asian Studies, 20(2), 183-200.

https://doi.org/10.1017/jea.2020.13

Koch, L., & Collins, K. (2019). Fissile material disposition: IAEA‟s verification challenges.

Nonproliferation Review, 26(3-4), 291-305.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10736700.2019.1693136

Krige, J. (2021). The historical context of the IAEA‟s establishment. Historical Studies in the

Physical and Biological Sciences, 51(1), 63-80.

https://doi.org/10.1525/hsps.2021.51.1.63

Kurokawa, K., & Kaneko, M. (2020). Capacity building programs of the IAEA: Enhancing

member state capabilities. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 365, 110720.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2020.110720

Lewis, P. (2021). The IAEA and nuclear non-proliferation: Core objectives and strategies.

International Affairs, 97(1), 155-172. https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiaa153

Lodgaard, S. (2019). The IAEA and nuclear disarmament verification: Challenges and

opportunities. Strategic Analysis, 43(6), 587-604.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09700161.2019.1663395

Lustig, A. (2020). Securing nuclear materials: IAEA's role in combating illicit trafficking.

Journal of Global Security Studies, 5(2), 234-249.

https://doi.org/10.1093/jogss/ogz043

38 | P a g e

Miller, S. E. (2021). Emerging technologies and the future of IAEA safeguards. Science &

Diplomacy, 10(3), 45-56. https://doi.org/10.1093/sd/ogx025

Mukhatzhanova, G. (2020). The IAEA and global disarmament efforts: Achievements and

limitations. International Journal of Nuclear Law, 10(1), 21-35.

https://doi.org/10.1504/IJNUCL.2020.111987

Muller, H. (2019). IAEA‟s technical assistance initiatives: Supporting peaceful nuclear

applications. Development in Practice, 29(6), 768-779.

https://doi.org/10.1080/09614524.2019.1608263

Nakatani, K. (2021). Environmental impact assessments of nuclear energy: IAEA guidelines and

standards. Environmental Science & Policy, 115, 46-54.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.07.013

Newman, A. L., & Zaring, D. (2021). The politics of enforcement: IAEA‟s challenges and

responses. International Organization, 75(2), 463-485.

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818320000501

Parker, R. (2020). Emergency preparedness and response: IAEA‟s role and initiatives. Journal of

Contingencies and Crisis Management, 28(4), 302-312. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-

5973.12320

Perkovich, G. (2019). Historical involvement of the IAEA in North Korea. Asian Security, 15(4),

377-392. https://doi.org/10.1080/14799855.2019.1635436

39 | P a g e

Rauf, T., & Persbo, A. (2020). IAEA‟s information sharing mechanisms: Enhancing

transparency and trust. Science & Global Security, 28(1), 1-16.

https://doi.org/10.1080/08929882.2020.1745056

Sagan, S. D., & Valentino, B. A. (2021). The IAEA and nuclear accountability: Tracking fissile

materials. International Security, 45(2), 123-147.

https://doi.org/10.1162/isec_a_00393

Shaker, M. I. (2020). IAEA's organizational structure: Analysis and future prospects. Nuclear

Law Bulletin, 104, 21-38. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264394422-en

Shea, T. E. (2019). Nuclear material accounting and detection of discrepancies. Journal of

Nuclear Materials Management, 48(4), 12-27.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00223131.2019.1659987

Stoiber, C., & Pelzer, N. (2020). IAEA and peaceful nuclear energy: Promoting civilian

applications. Energy Policy, 138, 111222.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111222

Students also viewed