The Nuclear dossier has been a hot topic since 1945 and after more than 80 years it is far from being closed.

After the tragic events of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which provoked destruction and the death of more than 300.000 innocent people, in January 1946 there was the first inaugural session of the UN General Assembly to address the danger and the risk of the use of atomic devices. The resolution called for the elimination of these lethal weapons and all those suitable for mass destruction. However, with the oncoming tension between the U.S and the Soviet Union and the start of the Cold War, this fundamental issue was disregarded.

In March 1950, thanks to a large mobilization of the Civil Society the World Peace Council issued the “Stockholm appeal”, calling for a ban on nuclear weapons, which was signed by nearly 2 million people. Seven years later, scientists from all over the world created the Pugwash conferences in order to evaluate and address the threats posed by nuclear weapons.

The tension climax was reached during The Cuban crisis, but its positive side was that in many governments and in the academic world the awareness of the dangers of these weapons re-emerged considering that, in every place and at every moment, a political and military confrontation between the great powers could turn into a tragedy for humanity as a whole. It was for these well-founded fears that, a few years later, in 1970, the Non-Proliferation Treaty came into force, which up to today has represented the milestone of the entire nuclear non-proliferation regime since the Cold War.

It counts 191 member states and the only countries that have not signed it are Israel, India, Pakistan, South Sudan and North Korea which withdrew in 2003.

The Treaty is based on three pillars: non-proliferation; nuclear disarmament and finally the promotion of international cooperation relating to the peaceful use of atomic energy.Footnote 1

In general, the NPT identifies a division of competences between nuclear and non-nuclear states and, since its adoption, the nuclear states have been obliged, under Article VI, to adopt measures aimed at favoring the end of the arms race and, at the same time, the beginning of the process of disarmament.

The NPT, although it continues to be the most important legal instrument in the field of nuclear weapons control, has nevertheless shown evident weaknesses over the years, the most evident being the non-commitment of nuclear states towards the provisions of Article VI of the treaty itself, in which states are required to adopt concrete measures that discourage the arms race and, above all, favor a real process of nuclear disarmament which appears to be an increasingly difficult objective to achieve.

So the NPT has disregarded the hope of achieving a world free of nuclear weapons at the moment and the general disappointment of non-nuclear states over the lack of disarmament policies is one of the parts that has most damaged the legitimacy of the nuclear non-proliferation regime.

Although historically the NPT has significantly reduced nuclear warheads, which went from 70,300 during the Cold War, to around 13,150 in 2021, this reduction cannot be considered a real progress in terms of disarmament and actually this result has been largely contested by non-nuclear states, especially because the sharp decrease in quantitative terms, has been accompanied by an improvement in qualitative terms, giving the impression that the real priority of the nuclear powers is therefore the modernization of their arsenals rather than the adoption of concrete disarmament policies.Footnote 2

Currently the USA has 5.600 nuclear weapons while Russia has about 6.257. In particular, nearly 9,500 world nuclear warheads are intended to be used through missiles, planes, ships and submarines 3,650 of them are in a state of alert, ready to be launched at any time.

Most of them are much more powerful than the atomic bombs dropped in 1945. These new nuclear weapons, if detonated in a large city, would be capable of killing millions of people with devastating effects on both human health and catastrophic consequences on the surrounding environment. Their harmful effects could persist for decades. This has been aided by constant technological progress with a qualitative upgrade of all weapon systems, both nuclear and conventional.Footnote 3

This spread of nuclear know-how also increases the risk of uncontrolled development of nuclear devices. According to the experts, the unpredictable combination of technological modernization and the persistence of military doctrines based on deterrence, lower the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons in the event of a conflict.

The US, Russia and China are continuing to modernize and increase their nuclear arsenals. Even in the Indian Sub-continent there are programs of extension, but these plans aren't monitored by International Law since neither India nor Pakistan, the 2 nuclear states of the region, are part of the NPT.Footnote 4

The NPT hasn't been successful in freeing the world from nuclear weapons.

The failure to implement Article 6 has created, over time, contrasts and differences of perspectives between non-nuclear states and nuclear states, especially regarding the conditions and methods of the disarmament process. The nuclear states promote a gradual approach in order to reconcile nuclear disarmament with the strategic and security needs of the current international scenario, and underline the results obtained in terms of downsizing of the arsenals, stating that the possession of nuclear weapons has essentially only a defensive and safety purpose. But the arsenal modernization programs are in clear contrast with the provisions of the NPT and the step-by-step approach could be seen as just an attempt to postpone the commitment to disarm.Footnote 5

This unclearness and lack of respect for legitimate nuclear powers on one hand has encouraged a dangerous nuclear proliferation of countries such as Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea who have over time developed nuclear weapons outside the NPT,Footnote 6 on the other hand these divergences have slowly but steadily increased a climate of distrust among the non-nuclear states.

Since the deterrence claim has always played a useful role for the nuclear powers, there was a need for a different point of view and that is why the Norwegian government decided to launch the humanitarian initiative which, from then on, has emphasized the catastrophic humanitarian effects of these weapons.

Three Conferences were therefore organized to focus on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons: in Oslo, Nayarit and Vienna.

The main conclusions achieved were:

  • no state or international body would be able to deal with the humanitarian emergency caused by nuclear detonations.

  • nuclear weapons have immediate and long-term devastating effects on the ecosystem, with regional and global effects.Footnote 7

The first took place in Oslo in April 2012 which saw the participation of 127 governments, UN agencies, international organizations and Civil Society. This Conference is considered a milestone for the issue of the use of nuclear weapons, because it brought out the need for stronger preventive measures and, at the same time it underlined the importance of involving the civil society and its role in the humanitarian aspects rather than the security issues.

It must also be said that the Conference was intentionally boycotted by all five nuclear states which claimed they couldn't attend because they recognize the NPT as the only valid treaty. The only countries present were India and Pakistan.

The second one was held in February 2014 in Nayarit (Mexico). Even in this one the focus was on the humanitarian impact in the political discussion on nuclear disarmament. The main topic was the damage and negative repercussions of a nuclear explosion, as well as the enormous resources destined to maintain and modernize nuclear arsenals.Footnote 8

The third one took place in Vienna with the participation of the United States and Great Britain. Among the various issues there was the one about the absurdity of nuclear weapons when it comes to the principles of human dignity and International Humanitarian Law. Despite the distrust of nuclear powers, the meetings on humanitarian impact have attracted the attention of other countries and civil society groups.

Pope Francis himself, in his message to the Vienna Conference, declared the need for nuclear weapons to be banned once and for all.

Another aspect of this last Conference was the questioning of the central role of the NPT as a reference framework for disarmament and non-proliferation and the most significant achievement was that 44 out of the 58 states that participated in Vienna called for a treaty to ban nuclear weapons because unlike other weapons of mass destruction (chemical and biological), nuclear weapons had not yet been banned by an international treaty.

These three conferences were key to the creation of a working group on disarmament which, in December 2016, during The UN General Assembly, adopted a resolution to convene the negotiating conference, sponsored by Austria, Brazil, Ireland, Mexico, Nigeria, and South Africa.

This resolution emphasized on the need to have a prohibition treaty which could be complementary to the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), since it could partially fulfill its Article VI.

A decisive push in this direction came from both The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) and the International Red Cross. ICAN, a coalition of non-governmental organizations, is among the top promoters since it has proposed itself as an “umbrella organization” for many international anti-nuclear groups it has been actively present in the humanitarian conferences, in the working groups and during the treaty negotiations which worked alongside governments to achieve the strongest, most effective treaty possible.

ICAN was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2017 for the “work to draw attention on the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons”Footnote 9 and for “ground-breaking efforts to achieve a treaty-based prohibition of such weapons.”. It has always worked alongside the Red Cross which pointed out that “The use of nuclear weapons has the potential to make the humanitarian mission, for which the movement was born, impossible.“Footnote 10

In the same year (November 2017), for the first time in its history, the Holy See organized the International Conference “A world free from nuclear weapons” with the main objective of highlighting the inhuman and immoral aspects of nuclear weapons.

This significant mobilization of non-nuclear states, Civil Society, the Holy See and International Red Cross, paved the way for the implementation of the Treaty of Non Prohibition Nuclear Weapons, which was approved in 2017 with 122 votes in favor, 1 against (The Netherlands), and 1 abstention (Singapore). The TPNW entered into force in 2021 becoming part of the international legal framework on disarmament together with the Non Proliferation Treaty (TNP).

The TPNW bans all activities related to nuclear weapons including manufacturing, testing, transferring, stationing, using, receiving nuclear weapons and assisting in their creation or threatening their use.

The Holy See was among the first to sign and ratify the TPNW and it has shown leadership in promoting the universalization of the Treaty as a vital part of the global nuclear disarmament architecture, together with the NPT and Pope Francis became the first Pope, in the nuclear era, to take a complete stand against nuclear weapons, even as a form of deterrence.

In the last year, eight ratifications have been added by Cambodia, the Philippines, the Comoros Islands, Chile, Mongolia, Guinea Bissau and Peru for a total of 59 signatory states, but on the other side, the nuclear powers and their main allies strongly opposed both its adoption and its entry into force, highlighting its weaknesses especially the prohibition for each state party not to assist, encourage or induce in any way a country to undertake any activity relating to the use of nuclear power.Footnote 11

The non-assistance provision actually was condemned both by countries allied with nuclear states and by those under the so-called American nuclear umbrella, but also by states that have or seek access to nuclear materials and technologies for the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

However the entry into force of the TPNW provoked reactions also within the North Atlantic Security Council which, in December 2020, issued a statement regarding the entry into force of the TPNW underlining its commitment to arms control, in order to achieve an international environment without nuclear weapons but reiterating that the NPT is the only and credible legal treaty on nuclear disarmament. The criticism raised by NATO mainly refers to the fact that the TPNW is weak in terms of strict and clear verification mechanisms and on the contrary insists much more on political objectives than on the technical process of denuclearization. Furthermore, the TPNW would not be signed by any state that possesses nuclear weapons and furthermore its entry into force would risk undermining five decades of efforts by the entire international community.Footnote 12

If it is true that one of NATO's objectives has always been to have a world free from nuclear weapons, as stated in its preamble, it is also a fact that in 2010 its strategic concept was released and NATO decided to adopt the definition of a nuclear alliance confirming that as long as nuclear weapons exist, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance. Furthermore, it is worth remembering that, even if all NATO members have joined the NPT, it is also true that, despite the commitments made in the context of reducing nuclear weapons and limiting their prospects for use, the three nuclear states of NATO (the USA, France and the UK) are modernizing and expanding their arsenals.Footnote 13

The European Union itself showed its skepticism towards the TPNW so much so that only thirteen States participated in the Treaty drafting process and only five (Austria, The Holy See, Ireland, Malta and San Marino) were among the first fifty to ratify the TPNW.Footnote 14 In November 2021, during the Council of the European Union on the 10th NPT Review Conference, the need to fully implement and universalize the NPT with some other notable proposals was underlined but in the final document there was no reference to the NPT.Footnote 15

Yet the European Union has always positioned itself as a world leader against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and in 2003 the European Union strategy against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction came into force. In reality, the attitude of many member states has often been contradictory and ambiguous regarding this issue since France is a nuclear state, and Belgium, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands host American nuclear weapons. Furthermore, most of the security policies of the EU Member States are closely related to cooperation with nuclear powers, given that 21 EU Member States are also NATO allies and finally from 2003 to date no serious review has been carried out, to adapt to the profound geopolitical changes and technological progress linked to the military field.Footnote 16

Despite the numerous criticisms and doubts raised above all by the nuclear powers, the TPNW can rightly be considered the first legal instrument that bans nuclear weapons and makes them illegal and a milestone for disarmament policies.

The TPNW finds its strength in having created a strong legal opposition to these armaments as part of a long-term plan for their abolitions. As R. Gibbons says “The renewed focus on the humanitarian and environmental impacts of nuclear weapons constitute a deliberate effort to devalue, delegitimize, and stigmatize nuclear weapons.“Footnote 17 Furthermore the risk of an accidental detonation constitutes a global threat for humanity since the sites dedicated to the production and storage of nuclear weapons could be cyber attacked or robbed by non-state actors.

According to, national president of the Italian Red Cross, this “first instrument of international humanitarian law, legally binding, is an unprecedented reminder that, despite and above all in the light of the many global tensions, we can and must intervene in defense of life.”

Actually, the most revolutionary message contained in the TPNW is its change of perspective from strategic to human security, based on the life of people as well as the emphasis on the idea of ​​an ever wider participation of civil society and public awareness on nuclear and disarmament issues. It is exactly the public opinion which could play a fundamental role in the future. In recent decades its role has grown considerably and even if those in power would prefer to circumvent or influence it, today it is clear that it should not be ignored considering the strong popular opposition to the war in Iraq (2003). International public opinion is now considered the second world superpower.Footnote 18

With respect to the nuclear agenda, although most European states seem opposed to the adoption of the TPNW, the results of polls conducted by YouGov and commissioned by the International Campaign for the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) and its European partners, an overwhelming rejection of nuclear weapons was evident. The opinion poll was conducted in the four European countries hosting US nuclear weapons: Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and Italy. In each of them, the vast majority of people interviewed (from 56 to 70%, depending on the case) said they were in favor of removing nuclear warheads from their territory and agreed (from 66 to 72%) with the hypothesis that its own State signs the Treaty which completely prohibits them.Footnote 19

Regarding our country, most Italian people want a world free from nuclear weapons; 72% of citizens said they were in favor of joining the UN Nuclear Weapons Prohibition Treaty, while 65% declared that the US nuclear warheads currently present in Ghedi and Aviano should be eliminated from our territory.Footnote 20

In conclusion just over 1 year has passed from the entry into force of The TPNW and sadly today an astonished world is witnessing a new dramatic global scenario where the strategic and geopolitical balances have deteriorated in the space of a few weeks.

On 27 of February 2022 President Vladimir Putin ordered Russian nuclear forces to move to a higher state of alert, inserting nuclear weapons into the Ukraine conflict, breaking the tabu of the use of these armaments. The famous phrase “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought,” coined during the darkest days of the Cold War, nowadays seems to have been erased as well as the huge efforts made behind the entry into force of the TPNW.

We are now experiencing a war that could easily turn into a nuclear one. Despite all the legal and humanitarian efforts towards a world free from nuclear weapons we still live in one where most States use and abuse nuclear weapons as a safety issue. Unfortunately the TPNW hasn't been globally embraced ad many European countries as well as all the nuclear weapon states haven't signed this fundamental treaty which could lead to disarmament and a truly safe world in contrast to a public opinion that asks their national governments to sign the TPNW.

Nuclear deterrence is a crucial right for all states and all human beings since we could all be affected and pay the consequences considering that the effects of the exposures do not respect borders.

The tragic events in the Ukraine conflicts, remind us that now, more than ever, an act of bravery from those states out of the TPNW would be desirable.

It is true that it wouldn't prevent future conflict, but it could prevent the world from coming to an end and as Ban Ki- moon said, “Nuclear disarmament is one of the greatest legacies we can pass on to future generations.”