The NPT's approach was different. It rests on three pillars: horizontal non-proliferation; vertical non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament; and the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The latter would enjoy the benefits of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and refrain from acquiring nuclear weapons.

The former would pursue nuclear disarmament, beginning with the cessation of all nuclear tests. By then, the International Atomic Energy Agency IAEA was in place, providing all parties with an international verification system, including inspections. The IAEA would do the same for the nuclear-weapon-free zones that have been established. The NPT was done in good faith, but the non-nuclear-weapon States insisted that the situation regarding its implementation be reviewed periodically; thus the five-year conferences.

In addition, the NPT was a temporary agreement whose extension would have to be examined after 25 years. In it was extended indefinitely. After , despite some very limited bilateral agreements between the US and the USSR, the nuclear arms race continued. The Partial Test-Ban Treaty had been a hoax, since underground tests multiplied.

It appeared that since nuclear tests were out of sight, they were also out of mind. Calls for a comprehensive nuclear-weapon-test prohibition fell on deaf ears.

The non-nuclear-weapon States tried to raise visibility of the nuclear disarmament issues. Still others requested an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice regarding the legality of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. Some continued to insist on the conclusion of a treaty prohibiting those weapons of mass destruction.

After all, the international community had already banned biological and chemical weapons through multilateral treaties, why not nuclear weapons as well? In the CTBT was finally concluded. Unfortunately, it contains a provision for its entry into force that is reminiscent of the conditions set forth by the Baruch Plan fifty years earlier in order to proceed to a nuclear-weapons-free world.

The CTBT must be ratified by the world's 44 nations that have nuclear-related activities. That is the bad news. In , the international community has come full circle.

United Nations General Assembly resolution contained the basic elements of a nuclear-weapons-free world: a general commitment to the elimination of nuclear weapons and an internationally-acceptable and verifiable system to promote the peaceful uses of atomic energy. After more than six decades of nuclear proliferation -- both horizontal as well as vertical -- the world seems poised to implement those same basic elements.

As in , the US is expected to take the lead. Public officials in some countries have begun to consider what a world without nuclear weapons would look like. The UN Secretary-General has detailed a five-point proposal. During last year's presidential campaign, then Senator Barack Obama called for a world in which there are no nuclear weapons, adding that to get there would not entail unilateral disarmament but a continuing commitment under the NPT on the long road towards eliminating them.

That was one of the basic tenets of the General Assembly resolution. In his speech in Prague, on 5 April , President Obama described the path to a nuclear-weapons-free world. In a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up. More nations have acquired these weapons. Testing has continued. Black markets trade in nuclear secrets and nuclear materials. The technology to build a bomb has spread.

Terrorists are determined to buy, build or steal one. Our efforts to contain these dangers are centred on a global non-proliferation regime, but as more people and nations break the rules, we could reach the point where the centre cannot hold. And what we cannot prepare for, we must prevent. To date, 86 States have signed the Treaty and 51 States have also ratified or acceded to it. Our work will not be done until all States have joined this Treaty. Nuclear weapons should be banned because they have unacceptable humanitarian consequences and pose a threat to humanity.

The simple reality is that the international community could never hope to deal with the impact of nuclear weapons use. If a nuclear bomb dropped tomorrow, this is what could happen to you.

This is why we need a nuclearban. No nation is prepared to deal with the humanitarian catastrophe generated by a nuclear detonation. The effects of a nuclear weapon detonation, notably the radioactive fallout carried downwind, cannot be contained within national borders. Similarly, no international body could address, in an appropriate manner, the immediate humanitarian emergency nor the long-term consequences of a nuclear weapon detonation, in particular for detonations in or near a populated area, nor provide adequate assistance to those affected.

Owing to the massive suffering and destruction caused by a nuclear detonation, it would probably not be possible to establish such capacities, even if attempted.

First, the blast wave, thermal wave, radiation and radioactive fallout generated by nuclear explosions cause countless deaths and have devastating short- and long-term effects on the human body, which existing health services are not equipped to alleviate in any significant way.

Then, a nuclear weapon detonation, especially those in or near a populated area, would likely trigger large-scale displacement, as well as long-term damage to the environment, infrastructure, socioeconomic development and social order.

It would take several decades to reconstruct infrastructure and regenerate economic activities, trade, communications, health-care facilities and schools. Finally, modern environmental modelling techniques demonstrate that even a "small-scale" use of some nuclear weapons would, in addition to spreading radiation around the world, lead to a cooling of the atmosphere, shorter growing seasons, food shortages and a global famine.

That's why nuclear weapons constitute a threat not to any one individual country, but to humanity as a whole. Citizens can raise awareness of what is at stake by putting the issue of nuclear weapons on the agendas of civic, religious, social and other organizations they're part of, spreading the word by sharing relevant ICRC content on social media platforms, and writing letters to local media to share these concerns. Depending on where individuals live, they can urge political leaders and those who can influence them to fulfill long-standing commitments to nuclear weapon reductions and elimination, join the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, and work urgently to reduce the risks that nuclear weapons may be used.

By entering this website, you consent to the use of technologies, such as cookies and analytics, to customise content, advertising and provide social media features. This will be used to analyse traffic to the website, allowing us to understand visitor preferences and improving our services. Learn more. I accept. Toggle navigation Donate. Search Search. Why does the Nuclear Ban Treaty matter? Article 19 January Which countries have ratified the Nuclear Ban Treaty?

Join us and say no to nuclear weapons. Now that the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons has entered into force, what will concretely change?

Would the nuclear threat be closer to zero? None of the countries who possess nuclear weapons have signed the treaty: what does it mean for them? It epitomizes a new political reality in the nuclear disarmament realm: Founded on the humanitarian imperative for nuclear abolition, it bears witness to a widely held perception that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty NPT , as currently implemented, does not constitute a credible path to abolition.

Negotiations stemming from L41 began this week at the United Nations in New York and, after the first round ends Friday, will continue June 15 to July 7. All UN member states, along with international organizations and members of civil society, were called on to participate.

Yet, several did not. A majority of nuclear-armed states and their allies — including the United States and most other NATO members, such as Germany and Canada — have actively opposed this effort and have openly tried to undermine its rationale. The U. But we have to be realistic… Is there anyone that believes that North Korea would agree to a ban on nuclear weapons? The irony, of course, was not lost. And while it is hardly surprising that the very states that rely on nuclear deterrence would oppose a legal prohibition of nuclear weapons, the primary arguments used to oppose the ban cannot withstand close scrutiny.

They are either misleading, based on a dead-end logic, or outright wrong. This point has been frequently raised by opponents to condemn negotiations before they even start. In reality, however, neither the way in which the talks will unfold nor possible outcomes are predetermined.

These naysayers have been repeatedly urged by a majority of NPT and UN states parties to participate in the talks, which would allow them to raise any and all international security concerns they may have. Instead, they preemptively indict the process and choose instead to boycott the negotiations.

Following its vote late last year against the proposal to convene the negotiations, the U. In it, the U. Nobody, however, is advocating for a ban in isolation, and it has never been said that the global security environment would not be considered. Or simply that there are difficult security challenges now facing the international community which no one disputes?

There is no perfect time to seek nuclear disarmament — or world peace or the end to hunger or equal pay for equal work. We cannot create a need for ideal conditions that will only become an excuse in perpetuity for the lack of progress. Non-nuclear-weapon states have never made the fulfillment of their nonproliferation obligations contingent upon the emergence of ideal international security conditions — and would surely be chastised by the nuclear-armed states if they did.

Achieving nuclear abolition will be a lengthy undertaking that will necessarily coexist with international security crises of varying gravity. In some forums, the states opposing ban negotiations openly question the impact and effectiveness of a prohibition treaty; in others, they admit that the process could have profound implications for the perpetuation and legitimacy of practices related to nuclear weapons. Remarkably, one of the best articulations of the significance of a legal ban comes from the U.

For example, a ban treaty could put limits on:. Opponents contend that negotiations to ban these weapons will create a schism in the international community, especially in the absence of nuclear-weapon states — whose presence continues to be widely encouraged. Indeed, these talks will be divisive. But they simply shed further light on longstanding divisions, which continue to be exacerbated by the blatant disregard of nuclear-weapon states for their obligations to disarm.

It should be noted that the very countries that blocked consensus in the process surrounding the nuclear-weapons-ban negotiations, including the adoption of Resolution L41, are now criticizing the lack of consensus. Following its vote against the proposed negotiations, NATO member and nuclear-armed France said in its explanation of its vote endorsed by the UK and the U.

Perplexingly, states wishing to undermine the negotiations continue to point to their own unwillingness to participate as an inherent flaw in the process. A legal instrument to ban nuclear weapons, however thorough or stringent its provisions, will not automatically result in fewer nuclear warheads in the hands of any actor.

Not a single proponent of the ban argues that this effort will be tantamount to abolition.