The UN Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)

ALBERT

International Bulletin for Peace and Disarmament

The UN Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)

Why the world cannot afford another NPT failure

On 27 April 2026, the work of the eleventh Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) begins in New York at the UN. For four weeks, delegates from 191 states will gather at United Nations Headquarters to discuss the future of what is considered the legal pillar of global nuclear disarmament. The stakes are extremely high: the two previous conferences, in 2015 and 2022, ended without a final document, and a third consecutive failure would risk definitively draining the meaning from this important international treaty.
Izumi Nakamitsu, UN Under-Secretary-General and High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, has issued an unequivocal warning: another failure could empty the NPT, reducing it to mere words on a page and depriving it of that political and moral force that has made it a fundamental instrument of nuclear governance for decades.
The conference opens at a time of extraordinary geopolitical gravity. The New START Treaty, the last binding agreement between the United States and Russia on the reduction of strategic nuclear weapons, expired in February 2026 without any replacement agreement being signed. The world’s two main nuclear powers now find themselves without a bilateral legal framework limiting their respective arsenals – a scenario not seen since the Cold War. Added to this are growing tensions in various regions of the world, the nuclear programs of states outside the NPT, and a more general erosion of multilateral trust, which makes any negotiation extremely difficult. Those concerned about the future watch with bated breath: what happens in New York in the coming weeks will determine whether there is still space for diplomacy and law in an era when the language of force seems to have replaced that of dialogue.

How the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty came into being

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has its roots in the fears and hopes of the early years of the nuclear age, in that period when what has been called the “atomic conscience” took shape. As early as 1946, when the United States was the only power possessing nuclear weapons, the Truman administration proposed to the United Nations the so-called Baruch Plan, which aimed to place nuclear energy under international control to prevent proliferation. The Soviet Union, which was developing its own atomic bomb, rejected the plan, suspecting it was meant to enshrine the American monopoly on nuclear weapons.
The arms race continued inexorably: the Soviet Union carried out its first nuclear test in 1949, followed by the United Kingdom in 1952, France in 1960 and China in 1964. The world, already divided by the Cold War, faced the terrifying prospect of uncontrolled proliferation. It was in this context that the United States, the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom began negotiations that led to the drafting of the NPT.
The treaty was opened for signature on 1 July 1968 in London, Moscow and Washington, enshrining a historic compromise: the five states that had tested nuclear devices before 1 January 1967 could keep their arsenals, but all committed to negotiate disarmament and prevent the spread of the weapon; non-nuclear states were guaranteed the peaceful uses of atomic energy under the safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). This historic nuclear compromise was reached under pressure from a public opinion made aware by conscious and responsible scientists who called the great nations to accountability. There was a global attention that is unfortunately lacking today. Despite the rifts and wars (just think of the bloody Vietnam War), the great powers were able to detach the armed conflicts of that time from the epochal perspective marked by the need to put a brake on the nuclear confrontation. And in this vein, negotiations were set for balanced international arms control, as provided for in Article 6 of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
This balance, often called the great NPT bargain, arose not only from ideals of peace but from a logic of necessity: to contain the arms race and prevent every regional crisis from turning into a global trigger for a possible nuclear war. The treaty entered into force on 5 March 1970, was extended indefinitely in 1995 and today has 191 states parties. It is the most universally ratified disarmament agreement in history.

The current relevance of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

It is worth returning to a historical fact of great relevance for the present: when the NPT was negotiated, the world was crossed by deep and lacerating wars. The Cold War divided the planet into two opposing blocs, the conflict in Vietnam raged, tensions between the superpowers reached extreme levels. Yet, in that context of bitter conflict, the political leaders of the time had the wisdom to separate the wars of the present from the prospect of reducing nuclear tensions. They managed to understand that, beyond the immediate military disputes, there was a higher common interest: to prevent humanity from plunging into a nuclear abyss.
Today the risk is particularly acute: we no longer have reference treaties and international law itself is considered ineffective and without value. We are at the lowest point of international law since 1945. The global legal structure for nuclear arms control is more fragile than ever, and 2026 looms as a crucial year for disarmament following the expiration of the New START treaty.

Timeline of key events

1946: The United States proposes the Baruch Plan for international control of nuclear energy; the USSR rejects it.
1949: The Soviet Union conducts its first nuclear test.
1952: The United Kingdom conducts its first nuclear test.
1960: France conducts its first nuclear test.
1964: China conducts its first nuclear test.
1 July 1968: The NPT is opened for signature in London, Moscow and Washington.
5 March 1970: The NPT enters into force.
1974: India conducts its first nuclear test, remaining outside the NPT.
1995: The NPT is indefinitely extended.
1998: Pakistan conducts nuclear tests, remaining outside the NPT.
2003: North Korea withdraws from the NPT.
2006: North Korea conducts its first nuclear test.
2010: The NPT Review Conference adopts a disarmament action plan.
2015: The NPT Review Conference ends without a final document due to disagreements over a Middle East nuclear-weapon-free zone.
2019: Collapse of the INF Treaty banning intermediate-range missiles (the so-called "Euromissiles").
2022: The NPT Review Conference ends without a final document due to Russia's opposition to clauses relating to the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant.
2026: In February, the New START Treaty on long-range nuclear missiles expires without a replacement agreement between the US and Russia.
2026: From 27 April to 22 May, the eleventh NPT Review Conference takes place in New York.

Key issues on the negotiating table

The conference on 27 April 2026 will have to address several crucial issues.
First, the international security context and the state of nuclear disarmament, with the expiration of New START leaving the United States and Russia without any binding limits on their arsenals.
Second, the relationship between the NPT and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), which entered into force in 2021 and has been ratified by about one hundred states, representing a complementary challenge to the non-proliferation regime.
Added to these themes are regional crises: the war in Ukraine and tensions over the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, the conflict in the Middle East with the bombings in Iran, North Korea’s nuclear program continuing its development, and the arms race also involving emerging powers.
According to data from the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), the nine states possessing nuclear weapons collectively have about 12,100 warheads, of which about 9,600 in storage, 3,900 ready for use, and about 2,100 on alert, ready for launch. Russia and the United States together control about 87% of the global arsenal.
A new and worrying issue is the integration of artificial intelligence into weapons systems. The boundary between simulation and reality has been broken in the recent bombings in Iran, where AI systems were used to process targets extremely quickly. The development of AI, connected to ever-faster choices linked to hypersonic missiles, is changing the very nature of the nuclear threat.

Why previous conferences failed

NPT Review Conferences operate under the consensus rule: the opposition of a single state is enough to block the adoption of a final document. This rule, designed to ensure the broadest participation, has turned into a veto weapon.
In 2015, the conference ended without a unified document due to strong divisions between nuclear and non-nuclear states, with the Middle East issue being the main cause of failure. The United States, the United Kingdom and Canada opposed the proposal to convene a conference to establish a weapons of mass destruction-free zone in the Middle East.
In 2022, it was Russia that blocked consensus due to disagreements over the war in Ukraine and the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant, specifically over the proposal that control be returned to Ukrainian authorities. Russia accused the document of being "politicized."
These consecutive failures have seriously undermined the credibility of the NPT. As early as 2023, the first session of the preparatory committee for the eleventh review conference failed even to accept the final report proposed by its Chair – an unprecedented event.

Positions in the field: state actors

The negotiating landscape is extremely fragmented, with often irreconcilable positions.

United States: The Trump administration has adopted a line of open defiance towards multilateralism. On 7 January 2026, the president signed an executive order providing for the withdrawal of the United States from 66 treaties or international organizations, including 31 multilateral agreements. On the nuclear front, the United States threatens to resume nuclear testing, effectively violating the spirit of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). Their priority remains non-proliferation and countering the programs of Iran and North Korea, but the policy of disengagement from international treaties undermines allies' trust and the credibility of the entire system of international agreements.

Russia: Sergey Ryabkov, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister, stated that the three sessions of the preparatory committee for the 2026 conference showed that the parties are not converging on an agreement for a final document.

China: The Chinese delegation presents itself as a champion of non-nuclear states, recalling that it is the only nuclear state to have publicly declared that it will not be the first to use nuclear weapons ("no first strike") at any time and under any circumstances, and that it will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states and nuclear-weapon-free zones – a policy unchanged for over sixty years. However, China is expanding and modernizing its arsenal, with estimates indicating about 600 warheads.

France and United Kingdom: France has announced an increase in the number of nuclear warheads in its arsenal and proposes a French nuclear umbrella for Europe, a proposal already accepted by eight countries. The United Kingdom maintains a more traditional position, aligned with the United States on extended deterrence. Both countries are bound by the disarmament obligations of Article VI of the NPT, but their current policies go in the opposite direction.

Non-nuclear states: The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and the New Agenda Coalition (NAC) strongly call for concrete progress on disarmament and greater transparency. Vietnam, which will preside over the 2026 conference at the proposal of 120 NAM member states, has organized regional consultations in Africa, Asia-Pacific and Latin America to discuss the priorities of the review process. Many non-nuclear states are pushing for the adoption of a no-first-use policy and for recognition of the TPNW.

Middle East and Asian countries: Iran, following the 2018 withdrawal of Donald Trump from the 2015 Vienna agreement, has resumed uranium enrichment to the 60% level, dangerously approaching the 90% threshold needed for the production of nuclear bombs. North Korea continues its nuclear and missile development program, with a five-year plan aimed at expanding military capability to a level considered incomparable. Saudi Arabia, Japan and South Korea are potential candidates for nuclear proliferation, depending on geopolitical developments. The Japanese government in particular is subject to strong opposition from the anti-rearmament movement against the government's strategy that would like to amend Article 9 of the pacifist constitution, which renounces war.

India, Pakistan and Israel: They are not parties to the NPT and possess nuclear weapons. Their existence outside the treaty represents a permanent challenge to its universality and credibility. Israel has an estimated arsenal of about 90 warheads, India about 180, and Pakistan about 170.

Initiatives of the international peace movement

In this context of tensions and divisions, the international peace movement plays a fundamental role in drawing public attention to issues that governments and mainstream media tend to keep away from public debate, often because they are considered too technical and not easily understood. Yet it is precisely the complexity of these issues that makes the work of translation and dissemination that only organized civil society can guarantee indispensable.
The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), Nobel Peace Prize 2017, is at the forefront of mobilization. ICAN Australia has invited Australian and Pacific island civil society organizations to sign a declaration calling on the government to prohibit the entry, transit or presence of nuclear weapons in Australian territory and to ratify the TPNW. More than 150 organizations have joined the appeal.
ICAN France launched a press alert entitled "The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in danger: France plays with fire", denouncing that the nuclear powers seem determined to undermine the very foundations of the non-proliferation regime, violating its spirit and sometimes its letter. The campaign organizes awareness-raising events throughout France, with exhibitions, documentary screenings and public debates to bring nuclear disarmament to the center of public discourse.
Mayors for Peace, the international network of mayors for peace, organized a webinar in collaboration with ICAN to address the disappearance of nuclear arms limitation treaties. The meeting saw the participation of experts and activists from across Europe. It was recalled that the main weakness of the European nuclear disarmament movement is perhaps the lack of trust in its own power and strength. A mass popular movement for nuclear disarmament needs to be built, bridges based on diplomacy need to be created, and grassroots voices need to be empowered.
Melissa Parke, Executive Director of ICAN, emphasized that the Doomsday Clock stands at 85 seconds to midnight. She commented that in recent times the world has witnessed several nuclear-armed states, notably the United States, Russia and Israel, acting in violation of international law, with no regard for institutions that promote peace and accountability. In this nuclear age, such actions represent an existential risk for all of us and for the planet.
Sophie Bolt, General Secretary of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament of the United Kingdom, highlighted that the threat from nuclear weapons is at its highest level since the Cold War. The war in Ukraine has become the most serious nuclear flashpoint. We have witnessed the escalation of long-range US and British missiles, Russia's test of the Burevestnik nuclear-powered cruise missile, and the stationing of Russian nuclear weapons in Belarus for the first time since the Cold War. Furthermore, a new generation of US nuclear bombs has been deployed at NATO bases across Europe.
A fundamental role is also played by the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the hibakusha, who will be present in New York during the conference. Their testimonies should make the world understand the humanitarian consequences of an atomic bomb. Also present will be representatives of the Pacific Ocean peoples who have suffered for decades the consequences of open-air nuclear tests. On 30 March 2026, in Fiji, hundreds of people gathered at the University of the South Pacific in Suva for the Nuclear Victims Remembrance Day. The title of the initiative was "ANIN jitbon mar", which in the local language means a spiritual call coming from the islands. The major newspapers and TV news did not tell this story. For those with a pacifist view of the world, this silence is a sign of the suppression of an inconvenient truth.

The role of scientists in disarmament

Scientists have a particular responsibility in the nuclear disarmament debate. The Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1995, represent one of the most authoritative voices in this field. On 24 February 2026, the Secretary General of Pugwash published an article in Nature Worldview emphasizing that, for the first time in more than fifty years, the two main nuclear powers are operating without the protective barriers that have provided control, stability, predictability and transparency to the global order. This increases the risk of a renewed nuclear arms race and global proliferation. Equally worrying is the absence of public discussions about the risks posed by nuclear weapons: the public, scientists and political leaders have remained mostly silent.
Pugwash's leadership expressed unequivocal condemnation of the military attack launched by the United States and Israel against Iran, calling it a flagrant violation of international law, the United Nations Charter and the fundamental principles of humanity. The deliberate attack on force represents a war of choice, not of necessity. What is more critical, according to Pugwash, is that the Iranian nuclear program is not the central point of the dispute or the target of the military attacks. By launching attacks against non-nuclear-weapon states, these nuclear powers have broken the security assurances of the non-proliferation regime. Such actions risk triggering a new and uncontrollable wave of proliferation, as non-nuclear states might now find a desperate justification for acquiring nuclear weapons to safeguard their own survival.
Pugwash warns against the normalization of war as an instrument of policy. The current situation is in stark opposition to Pugwash's founding ideals, which are rooted in dialogue in the service of cooperative security and war prevention. Diplomacy and adherence to international law remain the only viable path to lasting peace and security.
The Union of Scientists for Disarmament (USPID) in Italy works on multiple fronts: nuclear control and disarmament, proliferation, consequences of nuclear explosions, fissile material control, developments in military technology, conventional disarmament, chemical and biological disarmament, and conflict and conflict resolution issues.
International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), also a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, brings the medical and health perspective to the debate, documenting the humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons.

Conclusion: the risk of an uncontrolled arms race

The 2026 NPT Review Conference takes place at a time when international law seems to have lost its binding force. Treaties are being abandoned, agreements are not being renewed, multilateral institutions are being questioned. We are at the lowest point of international law since 1945. Yet, precisely at this moment of crisis, the NPT perhaps represents the last remaining hope for preserving a nuclear order based on shared rules.
The world cannot afford a third consecutive failure. An NPT emptied of meaning would not only pave the way for an uncontrolled arms race but would also undermine the very credibility of multilateralism and diplomacy as tools for conflict resolution. In an era when the nuclear threat has returned to being dramatically current, with expanding arsenals, new technologies that increase the risks of escalation, and regional crises directly involving nuclear powers, the stakes could not be higher.
The international peace movement, scientists committed to disarmament, the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the victims of nuclear tests in the Pacific: it is they who keep the torch of reason alight in a world that seems to have forgotten the horrors of which nuclear weapons are capable. It is they who remind us that disarmament is not a utopia, but a necessity for the very survival of humanity. Their voice, often ignored by the mainstream media and the halls of power, is more necessary than ever. Because, as Pugwash recalled, diplomacy and adherence to international law remain the only viable path to lasting peace and security.

List of actors in the field

State actors

United States: priority to non-proliferation and extended deterrence; threat of resuming nuclear testing; withdrawal from 66 international treaties; estimated arsenal of 5,177 warheads.
Russia: defense of state sovereignty against verification demands; veto on clauses relating to Ukraine; estimated arsenal of 5,459 warheads; deployment of warheads in Belarus.
China: only nuclear state with a no-first-use declaration; proposes negative security assurances for non-nuclear states; arsenal expansion estimated at 600 warheads.
France: increase in number of warheads; proposal for a European nuclear umbrella; estimated arsenal of 370 warheads.
United Kingdom: extended deterrence aligned with the United States; estimated arsenal of 225 warheads.
India: not a party to the NPT; estimated arsenal of 180 warheads.
Pakistan: not a party to the NPT; estimated arsenal of 170 warheads.
Israel: not a party to the NPT; estimated arsenal of 90 warheads; policy of nuclear ambiguity.
North Korea: withdrew from the NPT in 2003; estimated arsenal of 50 warheads; nuclear and missile expansion program.
Iran: party to the NPT but with uranium enrichment program at 60%; potential nuclear threshold state.
Vietnam: presidency of the 2026 Review Conference; mediation role between opposing blocs.
Non-Aligned Movement (NAM): demand for concrete progress on disarmament and greater transparency.
New Agenda Coalition (NAC): promotion of no-first-use policies and recognition of the TPNW.

Civil society actors

International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN): Nobel Peace Prize 2017; promotes the TPNW.
Mayors for Peace: international network of mayors committed to the abolition of nuclear weapons.
Hibakusha: survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings; provide direct testimony of the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons; will have a presence in New York during the conference.
Pacific peoples: victims of over 300 nuclear tests conducted by the United States, France and the United Kingdom between 1946 and 1996; will have representation in New York to seek justice and recognition.
International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW): Nobel Peace Prize 1985; offer a medical perspective on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons.
Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) of the United Kingdom: mobilization campaign against the enhancement of the British nuclear arsenal.
Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs: Nobel Peace Prize 1995; promotes dialogue between scientists and policy-makers; analyzes nuclear risks and promotes disarmament based on scientific evidence.
Federation of American Scientists (FAS): monitoring and analysis of global nuclear arsenals; produces data and statistics for public debate.
Italian Peace and Disarmament Network: coordination of movements, associations and bodies for peace and disarmament; denounces the failure of nuclear deterrence; promotes in Italy a draft law for a Department of Unarmed and Nonviolent Civil Defense.
Union of Scientists for Disarmament (USPID): research and dissemination in Italy on arms control, proliferation, consequences of nuclear explosions, military technologies.
ISODARCO (International School on Disarmament and Research on Conflicts), founded in 1966, organizes high-level courses on nuclear risks, international security and disarmament.
PeaceLink: telematic network for peace; promotes global communication on nuclear disarmament issues.

Glossary

NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty): international agreement that entered into force in 1970, based on three pillars: non-proliferation, disarmament and peaceful use of nuclear energy. It recognizes as official nuclear states only those countries that had developed nuclear weapons before 1 January 1967 (United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China).

Review Conference: meeting held every five years to assess the implementation of the NPT and adopt a final document with measures to strengthen it.

Consensus: NPT decision-making rule whereby the adoption of a final document requires the agreement of all participating states; the opposition of a single state is enough to block any decision.

Article VI of the NPT: clause committing all states parties to pursue negotiations in good faith on the cessation of the nuclear arms race and on nuclear disarmament.

TPNW (Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons): treaty that entered into force in 2021, prohibiting the development, testing, production, stockpiling, transfer, use and threat of use of nuclear weapons. Ratified by about 100 states, but not by nuclear-armed states.

New START: bilateral treaty between the United States and Russia for the reduction of strategic nuclear weapons, entered into force in 2011 and expired in February 2026 without being renewed.

INF (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty): 1987 agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union eliminating intermediate-range missiles; collapsed in 2019.

CTBT (Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty): 1996 treaty banning all nuclear tests; signed but not yet entered into force due to lack of ratification by some key states.

Negative security assurances: commitment by nuclear states not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states.

Extended deterrence: policy whereby a nuclear power extends its nuclear protection to allied non-nuclear states, promising to use its nuclear weapons in their defense.

Nuclear sharing: agreement whereby non-nuclear states host nuclear weapons of a nuclear power on their territory and participate in planning for their possible use.

No First Use: declaration by a nuclear state that it will not be the first to use nuclear weapons in a conflict.

IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency): international organization that promotes the peaceful use of nuclear energy and verifies compliance with non-proliferation obligations.

Hibakusha: Japanese term indicating the survivors of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Nuclear-weapon-free zone: geographical area where states commit not to develop, acquire, test or station nuclear weapons.

Albert
Pacifist Bulletin
email: info@peacelink.it
19 April 2026