By: Riley Ney

The 23 November session of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reconvened with a startling declaration: that IAEA has failed in any capacity to address the needs of its members. 

Delivered by Representative Samuel Mungai of Australia, this statement came as the Australian delegation renounced the past two days of meandering and deliberation of enforcement mechanisms. Representative Mungai declared that the past debate was ignorant of the needs of developing and smaller nations within the body. At the core of Representative Mungai’s complaint is the refusal to entertain the discussion of funding and effectiveness for the IAEA’s operations. 

However, proposals for revisiting the funding of IAEA provisions are drafted delicately. The IAEA does not have budget setting authority nor the capability to demand the reallocation of funds. Instead, Representative Mungai advocates for drawing on latent sources of existing funding from mismanagement of years past. Draft resolution JJ addresses the demands of the smaller States in IAEA proceedings that are overlooked in the status quo. The desire for overarching frameworks leaves the States with lower gross domestic product (GDP) values with little leverage for exercising their interests, the Representative explains.

“Understanding that if you are among the people who have the most nuclear facilities, you also understand you’re also the people who need the most policing,” said Representative Mungai. Representative Mungai further explained, “…for developing nations, we are giving them assurance. For developed nations, we are giving them insurance.”

The success of draft resolution JJ is predicated on winning the support of voting blocs concerned about the potential violations of national sovereignty. One complication would be the conflict between JJ’s funding provisions and more popular statements that align with Australia’s goals.

Several delegations that support draft resolution BB have taken the floor to advocate for customary obligations for review in addition to reorganizing funding usage. With sponsorships from the United States of America, United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, Türkiye, Saudi Arabia and Iraq,  BB represents a unique option for international equity. According to Representative Ethan Vela of the State of Palestine, BB includes provisions for technology sharing that can be rescinded by the IAEA should a State fail to comply with information disclosures over the interstate trade of fissile material. As Representative Vela discussed at the corresponding press conference, the very structure of the resolution eases the individual burden of enforcement.

Yet, for representatives like Representative David Izzo of the United States, reaching an operational level for Draft Resolution JJ remains another potential roadblock for its passage. JJ relies on state-based donations to correct a supposed deficit, while BB instead reorganizes current inspection failures, in which resources are wasted by States refusing inspectors at the border and misuse of emergency staff. As Representative Jayden Winter of Saudi Arabia summarizies, the above mechanisms risk significantly less dependence on individual states that could roll into the same issues of the status quo.

“The United States’s main concern still remains issues over national sovereignty…it seems like they are trying to establish what [the Australian delegation] call[s] ‘a needs-based mechanism’ and we want to see some very clear language that ensures it is voluntary,” said Representative David Izzo of the United States. 

From both sides of the aisle, it is clear the IAEA can no longer shirk the question of resources as the world of nuclear security becomes more complex. Instead, the IAEA will have to reckon with the difficult question of fairness as expanded enforcement threatens the very sustainability of the organization.