gned the TPNW. Furthermore, neither these countries’ key allies, including all NATO members, nor non-states parties to the NPT that are understood or alleged to possess nuclear weapons – India, Israel, North Korea and Pakistan – have signed the new treaty. Only TPNW states parties are bound by its provisions.
The History of the Treaty
The 2017 adoption of the treaty resulted in mixed responses. According to a UN press release, the spokesperson for UN Secretary-General António Guterres said: “The treaty represents an important step and contribution towards the common aspirations of a world without nuclear weapons.” Praise for the treaty was also voiced by members of the civil society that have continuously worked towards its realization. For instance, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) stated: “This treaty is a clear indication that the majority of the world no longer accepts nuclear weapons and does not consider them legitimate tools of war.” ICAN was awarded the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize for its work on eliminating nuclear weapons, that year culminating in the adoption of the TPNW.
However, critics of the treaty, including nuclear weapon states and their allies, claim that a treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons is premature given the current international security environment. In a joint press release, the United States, the United Kingdom, and France stated the following: “We do not intend to sign, ratify or ever become party to [the treaty]. Therefore, there will be no change in the legal obligations on our countries with respect to nuclear weapons.” The statement further adds: “This treaty offers no solution to the grave threat posed by North Korea’s nuclear program, nor does it address other security challenges that make nuclear deterrence necessary. A ban treaty also risks undermining the existing international security architecture which contributes to the maintenance of international peace and security.”
Despite the criticism, proponents of the TPNW expect that the treaty will create similar dynamics as previous international efforts to ban controversial weapons, such as the bans on anti-personnel mines, cluster munitions, and biological and chemical weapons. Proponents argue that the treaty will reinforce the stigma of nuclear weapons and create a strong social norm against them, which will eventually lead to their elimination. Taking into consideration that nuclear weapons are significantly more important for countries’ individual security and their strategic alliances than any other type of controversial weapon, it remains to be seen whether the new treaty can create the disarmament dynamic many human rights stakeholders are hoping for.
Implications for Investors
During TPNW negotiations, various proposals were made to include an explicit provision that would prohibit the financing of nuclear weapons. In March 2017, the Dutch NGO PAX argued in a submission to the UN that such a provision would “limit the flow of financing to the companies involved in nuclear arsenals and thereby have a concrete impact beyond the countries that initially accede to the treaty.” However, the final treaty text does not contain such an explicit financing provision. Instead, the treaty contains a so called “assistance clause.” According to this clause, TPNW state parties are not allowed to “assist, encourage or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Treaty.” While this phrasing does not explicitly prohibit financing, it opens the possibility for state parties to individually interpret what activities are covered by it.
National legal prohibitions on the financing of controversial weapons typically originate from an interpretation of the “assistance clause,” which is included in other arms control instruments banning anti-personnel mines, chemical weapons and cluster munitions. Currently, legislation that explicitly restricts the financing of controversial weapons is in place in a dozen countries. In addition to including explicit language on a financing prohib