As states gather for the 2026 NPT Review Conference, there is little expectation that much will be achieved. Two consecutive review conferences have ended without agreement. The nuclear arsenals that the treaty was designed to eliminate are being expanded. And the states most loudly defending the NPT’s importance are, in many cases, the same ones failing to honour its central obligation. ICAN’s new Cornerstone Report documents exactly how this happened, and what can still be done to implement the NPT’s promise on non-proliferation and disarmament.
When the NPT was negotiated, the geopolitical stakes couldn’t have been higher. Five states had already tested nuclear weapons, stockpiles increased fast and several countries worked actively on developing their own capacities. In that troubling security environment, the treaty was built on a two-sided bargain: non-nuclear-weapon states agreed not to develop nuclear weapons, and the five states that already had exploded them agreed to get rid of theirs. One side, the vast majority of states, has kept its word. The other has not.
What the nuclear-armed states have done instead, with extraordinary diplomatic sophistication, is performing compliance with the treaty. Working papers that discuss future options. Stepping stones to other stepping stones. Transparency reports submitted alongside expanding arsenals. Statements of unequivocal commitment to disarmament delivered by governments simultaneously raising warhead ceilings and commissioning new nuclear submarines. A cynical procedure.
The Cornerstone Report names this for what it is: A set of deliberate choices made by identifiable states that have decided their arsenals matter more than their legal obligations.
In addition, a new and troubling escalation of incentivising nuclear weapons has taken up speed: Non-nuclear-weapon states parties to the NPT, who are legally bound not to seek nuclear weapons, but whose heads of government are now openly praising nuclear deterrence, and in some cases explicitly advocating for nuclear capabilities. The same logic used by nuclear-armed states to justify keeping their weapons is increasingly being deployed by states that signed the NPT on the other side of the bargain, hollowing out the treaty’s original promise entirely.
What can be done to achieve the NPTs goals?
While a minority of states halts and as of late actually reverses progress to implement the NPT, a large majority of states chose not to wait any longer and negotiated the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. The TPNW is now in force, has a majority of NPT member states on board, and has built in five years what the NPT’s disarmament pillar has not produced in fifty-eight. This November it holds its first Review Conference in New York. All states, and especially those serious about honouring the NPT’s original promise should participate.
