Understanding the Ban Treaty

It appears very likely that a coalition of willing countries and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) will negotiate a treaty legally prohibiting nuclear weapons within the next year. Such a negotiation was authorized by the United Nations General Assembly on December 23, 2016 by a vote of 113-35-13. This is the outcome of a movement which grew out of frustration with the perceived slow pace of nuclear disarmament, as well as research indicating that even a medium- sized nuclear war, not even involving the five nuclear-weapon states (NWS), could have a more drastic effect on world climate than previously realized, causing severe damage to agriculture. The NWS and their allies strongly oppose such a treaty, but there appear to be enough Non- Nuclear-Weapon States (NNWS) which support it to constitute a majority and push it through. As currently understood, this Ban Treaty would not require the elimination of any nuclear weapons. Proponents envision a later agreement, or perhaps additional protocols to the Ban Treaty itself, which would eliminate all such weapons and specify the required procedures, timelines and verification regime. The prospect of a legal regime under which nuclear weapons are illegal, but which does not deal with the thousands that currently exist, would create a unique situation, which could last for years. A number of other aspects of such a situation would be challenging, both legally and politically. Perhaps the most serious question will be the effect on arms control efforts in general and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in particular. A strong stand against nuclear weapons by a majority of the world’s countries could pressure the NWS to accelerate their promise in Article VI of the NPT to eliminate them. On the other hand, serious controversy on this issue could widen and harden the existing differences and even damage the NPT itself. Which way this issue turns could have profound implications for world peace and security.