Font size:
Print
Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW)
Context:
September 26 marks the International Day for the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons on the United Nations calendar.
More on News
- This year, the UN General Assembly’s agenda includes a session on the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), also known as the Ban Treaty, which differs from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
- The session comes at a time of deep divisions within the UN, driven by conflicts like the war in Ukraine, the Israel-Palestine issue, and the urgent need to address climate change and related inequalities.
About the Ban Treaty
- The TPNW emerged from the Humanitarian Initiative, a coalition of UN agencies and NGOs that sought to highlight the lasting impact of nuclear weapons on human health, the environment, and societies.
- Following discussions at the UN, the General Assembly convened a conference in 2017 to negotiate a “legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination.”
- The treaty, the only one to legally ban all nuclear weapons and their use, was adopted without the participation of nuclear-armed states and their allies.
- These states openly opposed the treaty and declared themselves “persistent objectors,” meaning they are not bound by its provisions and do not view it as contributing to customary international law.
- The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), which came into effect in 2021, has deepened the divide between nuclear-armed states and their allies, and those that abstain from nuclear weapons.
- The treaty is comprehensive in its prohibitions, barring signatories from developing, testing, producing, stockpiling, transferring, using, deploying, or threatening to use any nuclear explosive devices.
- This makes it more extensive than the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which focuses on preventing the spread of nuclear weapons but only vaguely commits to disarmament and remains silent on nuclear use and deterrence.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)
The NPT is regarded as the cornerstone of the global nuclear non-proliferation regime and an essential foundation for the pursuit of nuclear disarmament.
Key Points about the NPT:
- Opened for signature in 1968, the NPT entered into force in 1970.
- 191 states have become parties to the treaty.
- The treaty defines nuclear-weapon states as those that have built and tested a nuclear explosive device before 1 January 1967: the United States (1945), Russia (1949), the United Kingdom (1952), France (1960), and China (1964).
- Four UN member states have never accepted the NPT: India, Israel, and Pakistan, which possess nuclear weapons, and North Korea, which withdrew from the treaty in 2003.
The Three Pillars of the NPT:
- Non-proliferation: The treaty requires non-nuclear-weapon states to accept IAEA safeguards and not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons.
- Disarmament: Article VI of the NPT represents the only binding commitment in a multilateral treaty to the goal of disarmament by the nuclear-weapon states.
- Peaceful uses of nuclear energy: The treaty promotes cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and equal access to this technology for all states parties.
Review Conferences:
- The NPT is reviewed every five years at a Review Conference (RevCon) to assess its implementation.
- In 1995, the treaty was extended indefinitely.
- The 2015 and 2020 RevCons ended without the adoption of a consensus outcome.
- By July 2024, the TPNW had 70 state parties and another 27 signatories awaiting ratification, representing nearly 50% of the states bound by the legal framework governing weapons of mass destruction.
- Their efforts may challenge long-standing beliefs about nuclear deterrence, which have already been questioned since Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine.
- Despite Russia and China’s “friendship without limits,” Chinese President Xi Jinping publicly opposed Russian President Vladimir Putin’s nuclear threats.
- The U.S. also signalled that any nuclear aggression would be met with a proportional response, but without specifying that this response would necessarily involve nuclear weapons.
- However, the resistance from nuclear-armed states and their allies may not be unwavering.
- Recent nuclear developments—such as Russia’s nuclear threats, China’s increasing arsenal, Iran’s uranium enrichment, and North Korea’s missile tests—have renewed discussions on the risks of nuclear weapons.
A Fine Line
- Sitting out a treaty is different from actively undermining it.
- India, for instance, has not signed the NPT, viewing it as discriminatory and not conducive to promoting disarmament, while also being against its national interests.
- Nevertheless, India has arguably benefited from the NPT’s role in limiting the spread of nuclear weapons and has never actively worked to undermine the treaty, despite its rhetoric and abstention.
- Other nuclear-armed states could adopt a similar approach with the TPNW, choosing to stay away from it without directly opposing it.
Despite its shortcomings, particularly the lack of strong enforcement, the TPNW holds significant potential to delegitimise nuclear weapons and deterrence. If successful, it could eventually place nuclear weapons in the same pariah category as chemical and biological weapons, greatly enhancing global security. While such a shift is unlikely in the immediate future, norms against nuclear use have strengthened over time, and the Ban Treaty, like the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, could stimulate critical discussions on the utility and effectiveness of nuclear weapons.
