The biggest question to date is whether we have the power to change now. Can we change the times? That’s the big debate. And how so? The IAEA suggests “the removal of any negative influences that may have existed in the past.” They explain that during “periods of change … requirements [are used to] strength[n] safeguards [and] system[s] [that it] would make on its inspectors.” Describing this process as not “an easy challenge” as many are “unwilling or unable to accept a change in mandate.” This has been described as “one of the biggest problems … face [by] the IAEA.” They go on to describe the necessity of “peaceful use of nuclear energy” and “empowering an impartial international inspectorate with the task of verifying” [that] “peaceful use” (215). Altogether this has been described as “a meaningful and important step in the direction of peace and international security.” What can we do to punish those who are “non-complian[t] with [traditional] … safeguards [and] obligations”? Currently the “IAEA has no legal mandate for the imposition of legal sanctions should it identify that a state is in non-compliance with its safeguards obligations.”
Google Search: changing the times, debate, positivity, terrorism
(1) Bellany, Ian. Terrorism and Weapons of Mass Destruction: Responding to the Challenge, https://books.google.com/books?id=tVTYfOAvFc8C&pg=PA215&lpg=PA215&dq=changing+the+times,+debate,+positivity,+terrorism&source=bl&ots=XXQAylki45&sig=WYiqlQoXOttJclRL8a-1jXO9pwQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiOtovU8YLYAhVK_mMKHe4pCu0Q6AEIRTAF#v=onepage&q=changing%20the%20times%2C%20debate%2C%20positivity%2C%20terrorism&f=false.