The treaty is a 96-page reminder to nuclear-weapon states, Whyte said, that “they must move forward with disarmament.” The hope for the abolition of nuclear weapons lies in the efforts of all social justice activists. Although we have a long way to go to achieve the elimination of nuclear weapons, Hiroshima survivor Setsuko Thurlow said, “With the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, we can be sure that this beautiful day will dawn.” In May 2015, the Dutch House of Representatives passed a non-binding motion calling on the Dutch government to participate substantially in international discussions on a treaty banning nuclear weapons, without prejudging the final outcome. [74] About a year later, in May 2016, the Dutch House of Representatives passed a similar motion calling on the government to advocate for an “international ban on nuclear weapons.” Some of these demands have been supported by at least one citizens` initiative. [75] These laws made it politically unacceptable for the Dutch government to formally abstain from participating in the TPNW negotiations and avoid voting, as the rest of NATO and the world`s nuclear-weapon states did. In 2012, the General Assembly expressed concern about the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of the use of nuclear weapons and adopted resolution 67/56 entitled “Progress in multilateral negotiations on nuclear disarmament”. By that resolution, the Assembly established an open-ended working group in 2013 to elaborate proposals to promote multilateral negotiations on nuclear disarmament in order to achieve a nuclear-weapon-free world, and the open-ended working group reflected its discussions in its report (A/68/514). In 2015, the UN General Assembly established a working group to consider “concrete and effective legal measures, legal provisions and norms” to achieve and maintain a nuclear-weapon-free world. [20] In August 2016, it adopted a report recommending negotiations on a “legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons leading to their total elimination.” [21] For countries that are parties to the treaty, the treaty prohibits the development, testing, production, stockpiling, deployment, transfer, use and threat of use of nuclear weapons, as well as the support and encouragement of prohibited activities. For the nuclear-weapon States that accede to the Treaty, it provides a time-bound framework for negotiations leading to the verified and irreversible elimination of their nuclear weapons programmes. In response to an ICAN call, more than eight hundred parliamentarians from around the world pledged to support a ban treaty, calling on “all national governments to negotiate a treaty that bans nuclear weapons and leads to their complete elimination,” calling it “necessary, feasible and increasingly urgent.” The countries they represent included members of the world`s existing nuclear-weapon-free zones as well as NATO countries. Of the five nuclear-armed permanent members of the UN Security Council, the UK was the only one with elected representatives who supported the initiative. [78] On February 22-26, the United Nations held in Geneva, Switzerland, the first session of the second session of the OEEC on concrete legal measures for the prohibition of nuclear weapons. The Meeting discussed measures that could be taken to address the risk posed by an accidental, unauthorized or deliberate explosion of nuclear weapons, as well as the humanitarian risk posed by such a nuclear explosion.
Although 160 States supported the Humanitarian Initiative at the 2015 NPT Review Conference, the Conference was unable to adopt a consensus outcome document. Many countries were not satisfied with this outcome and sought to transfer efforts to advance the disarmament agenda to an open working group on nuclear disarmament within the United Nations General Assembly. For many proponents of nuclear disarmament, the United Nations General Assembly has been a privileged forum for negotiations, as it takes decisions by a majority of member states rather than by consensus. 28 States submitted written comments, on which two States subsequently submitted written comments. At the hearing, which took place in October and November 1995, 22 States presented oral argument. Article 1 prohibits the development, testing, production, stockpiling, deployment, transfer, use and threat of use of nuclear weapons and the support and promotion of prohibited activities. Finally, any “direct or indirect control of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices” is prohibited. The problem with the ban, say global security analysts, is that while dozens of countries say a total ban is the best way forward with disarmament, others — especially those with nuclear weapons — disagree. The new treaty was also seen as a potential breach of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which entered into force in 1970.
But its proponents argue that nonproliferation stagnated decades after the U.S. and others agreed to the treaty. Many non-nuclear-weapon members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), as well as Australia[56] and Japan,[57] are also opposed to a ban treaty, believing that US nuclear weapons enhance their security. [50] Several NATO members (with the exception of France, the United States and the United Kingdom, the nuclear-weapon states within NATO) issued a statement stating that the treaty would be “ineffective in eliminating nuclear weapons” and instead called for advanced implementation of Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. [58] Proposals for a treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons first emerged after a 2010 NPT review conference at which the five officially recognized nuclear-weapon states parties – the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China – rejected calls to begin negotiations on a comprehensive nuclear weapons convention. Proponents of disarmament initially envisaged launching this process without opposing States as a “way forward”. [16] Later, a less technical treaty focused on the prohibition of nuclear weapons seemed a more realistic goal. [10] ICRC, Ending the Age of Nuclear Weapons The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) prohibits States Parties from developing, testing, producing, acquiring, possessing or stockpiling nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. Signatories are prohibited from transferring, receiving, controlling nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or assisting in activities prohibited by the Treaty. States are also prohibited from using or threatening to use nuclear weapons and other nuclear explosive devices. Finally, States parties shall not permit the stationing, installation or stationing of nuclear weapons and other nuclear explosive devices on their territory.
In addition to the Treaty`s prohibitions, States parties are required to provide assistance to victims and assistance in environmental restoration measures. On 7 December, the UN General Assembly adopted resolution 70/33, which established a working group to “consider the content of practical and effective legal measures, legislation and standards that need to be implemented to achieve and maintain a nuclear-weapon-free world”. More than 1,600 elected representatives from countries that have not yet joined the TPNW have already pledged to work to secure their governments` membership. Cities and towns around the world have passed resolutions encouraging their governments to join the treaty, including the capitals of nuclear-weapon states such as Paris and Washington, DC. Financial institutions have begun to divest themselves of nuclear weapons companies, including in countries that have not yet acceded to the treaty. Public support is also already behind the ban. Opinion polls show that 79% of Australians, 79% of Swedes, 78% of Norwegians, 75% of Japanese, 84% of Finns, 70% of Italians, 68% of Germans, 67% of French and 65% of Americans support membership of the TPNW.