Treaty on the non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons “Landmark international agreement designed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, promote cooperation in peaceful nuclear energy use, and advance disarmament".
What is the NPT? The NPT is a landmark international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament. The Treaty represents the only binding commitment in a multilateral treaty to the goal of disarmament by the nuclear-weapon States. Opened for signature in 1968, the Treaty entered into force in 1970. On 11 May 1995, the Treaty was extended indefinitely. A total of 191 States have joined the Treaty, including five nuclear-weapon States (China, Russia, US, UK, France). More countries have ratified the NPT than any other arms limitation and disarmament agreement, a testament to the Treaty’s significance.
NPT Review Conferences Must Knows
- Purpose: To review the treaty’s operation, update commitments, and provide recommendations to advance its objectives.
- Next NPT Review Conference is from April 27 to May 22, 2026.
- Occurs every 5 years.
NPT Review Conference April 27 - May 22, 2026
- NPT Review Conference April 27 - May 22, 2026
- Purpose: The conference will evaluate the implementation of the NPT: disarmament, non-proliferation, and the peaceful use of nuclear energy.
- Significance: It comes at a critical time! Particularly following the February 2026 expiration of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START), which complicates disarmament negotiations.
- President: Ambassador Do Hung Viet, Permanent Representative of the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam to the United Nations in New York.
To assess the treaty’s implementation, states convene Review Conferences every five years. These conferences evaluate compliance, update commitments, and attempt to produce consensus outcome documents that strengthen the treaty’s objectives. The upcoming 2026 Review Conference will be particularly significant, as it follows the expiration of the New START (New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) in February 2026. The lapse of this bilateral arms control agreement between the United States and Russia complicates the global disarmament landscape and raises broader questions about the future of strategic stability. In an era of renewed great-power rivalry and nuclear modernization, the Review Conference will test whether the NPT’s foundational bargain remains politically sustainable.
Quick Facts
- The NPT came into existence in 1968 and into force in 1970.
- First signed by the U.S, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom in 1968.
- India, Pakistan, Israel, and South Sudan did not ever sign the NPT.
- Fast forward, 191 are in the NPT. North Korea withdrew in 2003.
The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) is widely regarded as the foundation of the modern global nuclear order. Negotiated during the height of the Cold War, it was opened for signature in 1968 and entered into force in 1970. It emerged from a shared fear among major powers that the spread of nuclear weapons to additional states would dramatically increase the risk of nuclear war. Initially signed by the United States, the Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom, the treaty has since grown to include 191 states, making it one of the most universally adhered-to international agreements in history. However, India, Pakistan, Israel, and South Sudan never joined, and North Korea withdrew in 2003.
3 Pillars
- Non-proliferation: Prevents the spread of nuclear weapons - states who did not have access to them before 1970, agree to not acquire them because of the NPT.
- Disarmament: Negotiations in good faith
- Peace use of Nuclear Energy : Countries have the right to create nuclear energy for peaceful reasons such as research or medicine
Pillar 1: Non-proliferation The non-proliferation pillar requires non-nuclear-weapon states to forgo acquiring nuclear weapons and prohibits nuclear-weapon states from transferring weapons or assisting others in obtaining them. This system is reinforced through safeguards administered by the International Atomic Energy Agency, which monitors civilian nuclear programs to ensure they are not diverted for military purposes. Although not flawless, this pillar is often considered a relative success. Without it, the number of nuclear-armed states today might be far higher. Nevertheless, challenges such as North Korea’s withdrawal and ongoing concerns about nuclear latency demonstrate that proliferation risks remain real. Pillar 2: Disarmament The second pillar, disarmament, is anchored in Article VI of the treaty. This provision obligates all parties to pursue negotiations in good faith toward ending the nuclear arms race and achieving nuclear disarmament. For many non-nuclear states, Article VI represents the moral and legal heart of the NPT: the commitment that nuclear-weapon states will not retain these arms indefinitely. Nuclear-armed states, however, tend to interpret this obligation as gradual and contingent upon favorable security conditions. This interpretive divide has been one of the most persistent sources of tension at NPT Review Conferences, where non-nuclear states frequently express frustration over what they view as insufficient progress on disarmament. Pillar 3: Peace use of Nuclear Energy The third pillar affirms the inalienable right of all parties to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. This includes electricity generation, medical isotope production, agricultural research, and scientific advancement. The peaceful use provision ensures that the NPT is not merely restrictive but also cooperative. However, it introduces a structural tension, as technologies such as uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing can serve both civilian and military purposes. Managing this dual-use dilemma remains one of the central challenges of the global non-proliferation regime.
Article VI of the NPT It is the only legally binding multilateral treaty commitment requiring nuclear-armed states to pursue nuclear disarmament. Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.
TPNW
- Adopted at a United Nations conference in 2017 and entered force as a legally binding international law in 2021.
- The first legally binding international agreement that prohibits nuclear weapons.
- Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, TPNW, strengthens the disarmament pillar of the NPT by explicitly prohibiting the development, testing, position , and threat of use of nuclear weapons.
- TPNW proponents argue it fulfills the disarmament obligation of the NPT Article VI
- Currently 99 nations have signed the TPNW
The debate over disarmament has also intensified with the adoption of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) in 2017, which entered into force in 2021. The TPNW is the first legally binding international agreement to comprehensively prohibit the development, possession, testing, use, and threat of use of nuclear weapons. Supporters argue that it fulfills and operationalizes the disarmament obligations contained in Article VI of the NPT, reinforcing the norm against nuclear weapons by stigmatizing them. Critics, particularly nuclear-armed states and their allies, contend that the TPNW disregards prevailing security realities and risks creating parallel legal regimes that may weaken the NPT’s consensus-based framework. The absence of any nuclear-armed state among its signatories underscores the political divide between humanitarian disarmament advocates and deterrence-based security doctrines.
Negative Security Assurances
- Its purpose is to protect non-nuclear states from nuclear attacks.
- Are pledges by nuclear-armed states to not to use or threaten non-nuclear-armed states.
- These assurances are designed to encourage non-proliferation
Closely related to these debates are Negative Security Assurances, which are pledges by nuclear-armed states not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states. These assurances are intended to reinforce the non-proliferation regime by reducing incentives for states to seek nuclear deterrents of their own. However, many such assurances are conditional and lack legally binding force, leading non-nuclear states to advocate for stronger guarantees.
1996 ICJ Advisory Opinion
- Landmark International Law Case
- The International Court of Justice, ICJ, gave an advisory opinion stating that although the threat and use of nuclear weapons generally is contrary to international humanitarian law, it cannot conclude threats or even the use of nuclear weapons would be lawful even in extreme cases.
- The ICJ did conclude that states indeed have a general obligation to pursue nuclear disarmament.
- Judge Weeramantry (Dissenting): Strongly argued that the use of nuclear weapons is illegal under all circumstances, citing international humanitarian law, environmental law, and human rights.
The legal dimension of nuclear weapons was addressed in 1996 when the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an advisory opinion on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons. The Court concluded that such use would generally be contrary to international humanitarian law, though it could not definitively determine legality in extreme circumstances of self-defense. Importantly, the ICJ affirmed that states are under an obligation to pursue negotiations in good faith toward nuclear disarmament, reinforcing the binding nature of Article VI. Although advisory opinions are not legally binding in the same way as judgments in contentious cases, this opinion remains a foundational reference in disarmament discourse.
Middle East Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone
- Proposed by Iran and Egypt in 1974 who wanted to strengthen the NPT and enhance regional security.
- Requiring all of the middle east states to prohibit nuclear weapons.
- It is a diplomatic initiative to establish a nuclear free region while also including chemical and biological weapons.
One of the most diplomatically sensitive proposals related to regional disarmament is the Middle East Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone, first proposed by Egypt and Iran in 1974. The initiative seeks to prohibit nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons across the region. While intended to strengthen regional security and support the NPT framework, it has faced persistent obstacles, particularly given Israel’s non-participation in the NPT and the broader geopolitical tensions in the region.
NWFZS
- Nuclear Weapon Free Zones, NWFZS, are legally binding regional treaties where it prohibits testing, possession, development, and deployment of nuclear weapons in specific areas.
- The NWFZS was established under International Law
- Its purpose is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons in specific regions and strengthen international peace.
- There are 5 established Nuclear Weapon Free Zones which are Latin America, Africa, Central Asia, and South Pacific.
Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones
Regional approaches to non-proliferation have also emerged through Nuclear Weapon-Free Zones (NWFZs), which are legally binding treaties prohibiting the development, possession, and deployment of nuclear weapons in specific geographic areas. Zones in Latin America, Africa, Central Asia, the South Pacific, and Southeast Asia demonstrate how regional cooperation can strengthen global norms. These arrangements often include protocols under which nuclear-weapon states pledge to respect the zone and refrain from using nuclear weapons against member states. NWFZs thus function as complementary mechanisms that reinforce the broader objectives of the NPT.
Calendar
Schedule of the NPT PrepCom's Week 1 (April 27 to May 1)
Schedule of the NPT PrepCom's Week 2 (May 4 to May 8)
Schedule of the NPT PrepCom's Week 3 (May 11 to May 15)
Views from the P5
China
China has a strict policy to never to be the first to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons. It has also pledged not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states or nuclear weapon free zones at any time or under any circumstances. {S/1995/265}
France
France pledged not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states that belong to the NPT, except in invasion or attack on it or any of its territories or its armed forces, its allies, or a state toward which it has a security commitment, if it conducts or sustains this attack in alliance with a nuclear weapon state. After requests by many different countries, France sought to make its negative assurances similar to the Russia Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States. {S/1995/264}
Russia
Like France, Russia is committed to not using nuclear force unless it or any of its allies or territories is invaded or attacked in any other way by a non-nuclear weapon state in conjunction with a nuclear weapon state. {S/1995/261}
United Kingdom
Like France and Russia, the United Kingdom is committed to not using nuclear force unless it or any of its allies or territories is invaded or attacked in any other way by anon-nuclear weapon state in conjunction with a nuclear weapon state. {S/1995/262}
United States
United States: Like France, Russia, and the United Kingdom, the United States is committed to not using nuclear force unless it or any of its allies or territories is invaded or attacked in any other way by anon-nuclear weapon state in conjunction with a nuclear weapon state. {S/1995/263}
Important State Grouping
New Agenda Coalition (NAC): Established in 1998 and currently comprised of Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, and South Africa, this coalition of states calls for a new nuclear disarmament agenda. They specifically call for the nuclear-weapon states to commit to nuclear disarmament and begin multilateral negotiations to lead to the elimination of nuclear weapons through a Nuclear Weapons Convention.
Non-Aligned Movement (NAM): organization of States that did not formally align with the US or USSR during the Cold war and seek to remain independent. Their goals are to work against imperialism and neocolonialism, and moderate their relations with all big powers. Presently, they also aim to facilitate a restructuring of the international economic order.
Nonproliferation and Disarmament Initiative (NPDI): Founded in 2012, is a group of states within the framework of the NPT that focus on practical steps to promote the consensus outcomes of the 2010 NPT Review Conference, including advancing the nuclear disarmament agenda and increasing transparency in nuclear weapon states fulfillment of their disarmament commitments
Arab Group: A group of States predominantly located in the Middle East and Northern Africa that have made an ongoing commitment to pushing the “Resolution on the Middle East,” which calls for establishment of a regional zone free of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). They hold that this resolution serves as NPT’s “fourth pillar,” and maintain support for the review conference that is contingent on making progress on this issue
Stockholm Initiative for Nuclear Disarmament: Launched in 2019, with 16 non-nuclear member States. The aim of the Initiative is to reduce polarization between countries and take concrete steps towards the common ultimate goal of a world free of nuclear weapons.
Credits:
Created with an image by Yulia Buchatskaya - "Flags"