For nuclear-armed states joining the treaty, it provides for a time-bound framework for negotiations leading to the verified and irreversible elimination of its nuclear weapons programme.[8] According to its proponents, a treaty banning nuclear weapons will constitute an "unambiguous political commitment" to achieve and maintain a nuclear-weapon-free world.[9] However, unlike a comprehensive nuclear weapons convention, it was not intended to contain all of the legal and technical measures required to reach the point of elimination.Such provisions will instead be the subject of subsequent negotiations, allowing the initial agreement to be concluded relatively quickly and, if necessary, without the involvement of nuclear-armed nations.Article 2 requires each party to declare whether it had nuclear weapons of their own or deployed on its territory, including the elimination or conversion of related facilities.Article 4 sets out general procedures for negotiations with an individual nuclear-armed state becoming party to the treaty, including time limits and responsibilities.[20] In August 2016, it adopted a report recommending negotiations in 2017 on a "legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination".[21] In October 2016, the First Committee of the UN General Assembly acted upon this recommendation by adopting a resolution that establishes a mandate for nuclear weapons–ban treaty negotiations in 2017 (with 123 states voting in favour and 38 against, and 16 abstaining).At the end, the president of the negotiating conference, Elayne Whyte Gómez, permanent representative of Costa Rica to the UN in Geneva,[26] called the adoption of a treaty by 7 July "an achievable goal".Hence, several NATO states – Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy and Turkey – would have to end contracts on nuclear sharing with the USA before they could sign the negotiated ban treaty.[39][40] A second "destroy and join" option (Article 4, 5) only provides for cooperation with the IAEA in order to verify the correctness and completeness of the inventory of nuclear material, no verification of the elimination.[41] A last obstacle for agreement was the condition of the withdrawal clause, meaning that a state party "in exercising its national sovereignty, [...] decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of the Treaty have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country".After stating that the instrument clearly disregarded the realities of the international security environment, they said accession to it was "incompatible with the policy of nuclear deterrence, which has been essential to keeping the peace in Europe and North Asia for over 70 years".[61] Contrary to government position in a number of nations, several recent opinion polls – including Australia,[62] and Norway[63] – have shown strong public support for negotiating an international ban on nuclear weapons.[64][65] ICAN has been the main civil society actor working alongside governments to achieve a strong and effective ban treaty.[70] In a July 2017 public statement endorsed by over 40 Buddhist, Christian, Jewish and Muslim leaders and groups, "Faith Communities Concerned about Nuclear Weapons" called for universal adoption of the treaty.She argued that nuclear-weapon states were blocking multilateral disarmament negotiations and instead were modernizing their nuclear forces and abdicating their responsibility under Article VI of the NPT.[75] In NATO Review, Rühle indicated that according to proponents, it was intended to strengthen Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which requires good faith efforts to negotiate effective measures on nuclear disarmament.[78] Roughly a year later, in May 2016, the Dutch House of Representatives adopted a similar motion urging the government to work for "an international ban on nuclear weapons".
UN vote on adoption of the treaty on 7 July 2017
Yes
No
Abstention
Did not vote
A global appeal for a nuclear weapons–ban treaty, signed by 838 parliamentarians in 42 countries.