A Difficult Time for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

Interview with Jana Baldus

Elisabeth Waczek: From August 1 until August 26, the Tenth Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT RevCon) took place in New York City. You as well as PRIF researcher Sascha Hach have participated in the conference. What is the importance of NPT RevCon and what were the results of this year’s meeting?

Jana Baldus: The conference is the periodic review of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Every five years, States Parties meet to reaffirm the continued validity and effectiveness of the treaty, evaluate progress in treaty implementation and decide on future measures to strengthen the treaty. This time, the conference was postponed several times and only took place after a two-year delay due to the Covid19 pandemic. At the Review Conference, the State Parties discuss the progress with regard to the three pillars of the NPT: nuclear non-proliferation, peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and nuclear disarmament. Even before the NPT RevCon, it was clear that the conference would be difficult due to divergent views on how to assess progress and develop forward-looking actions on all three pillars. However, the question of how to make headway on nuclear disarmament in the face of deteriorating relations between nuclear-weapon states was particularly tricky. Indeed, the NPT RevCon was heavily influenced by the ongoing war waged by Russia against Ukraine – especially as the hazardous situation at the Zhaporizhzhya nuclear power plant continued to deteriorate during the conference. It is of course particularly problematic for the further advancement of the NPT if the official nuclear-weapon states are unable and unwilling to cooperate. It was therefore hardly surprising that the conference ended without a result document on which all states parties could agree.

“[...] the conference saw a highly hostile climate between Russia and the European states, the USA and other US allies, which regularly boiled over.”

Elisabeth Waczek: Since Russia started its war of aggression against all of Ukraine, a renaissance of nuclear deterrence seems to be upon us. How would you evaluate the impact of the recent geopolitical shifts on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? And what is the importance of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty especially in these times?

Jana Baldus: The polarization within the NPT has only intensified since the Russian invasion of Ukraine – this was also reflected during the NPT RevCon. Thus, the conference saw a highly hostile climate between Russia and the European states, the USA and other US allies, which regularly boiled over. In addition to condemning the Russian aggression against Ukraine, many states repeatedly pointed to the reckless behavior of the Russian Federation in violating existing security assurances such as the Budapest Memorandum (which was broken by Russia when it invaded Ukraine), to Russia’s dangerous nuclear rhetoric and to the untenable and risky situation at the Zhaporizhzhya nuclear power plant. In the end, Russia refused to accept the wording used to describe the situation at the Zhaporizhzhya nuclear power plant and the need to respect existing security assurances such as the Budapest Memorandum, thus preventing the adoption of a consensual final document.

“However, the Russian aggression has also underlined the important role of the NPT as a normative platform for condemning such dangerous acts and finding a way forward”

This (stalemate) situation has made clear how difficult it is for the NPT as a treaty regime to deal with such behavior by one of its official nuclear-weapon states. Since the Review Conference depends on consensus to agree on an outcome, finding a formulation that does justice to holding treaty violators and perpetrators accountable, but which is also acceptable to opposing positions, seems to be an almost impossible task (even if it has sometimes succeeded in the past). However, the Russian aggression has also underlined the important role of the NPT as a normative platform for condemning such dangerous acts and finding a way forward: Several states beyond the EU and NATO condemned Russian aggression; even more states condemned the (increasing) use of nuclear rhetoric and threats to use nuclear weapons under any circumstances. These are important normative gestures and hopefully help to strengthen and uphold the nuclear taboo.

Elisabeth Waczek: Are you satisfied with the conference’s outcomes? Which results would you have liked to see and what are your recommendations going forward?

Jana Baldus: The NPT RevCon has again failed to agree on a consensual outcome document, as it did at the last Review Conference in 2015. The best outcome for the NPT RevCon would have been a forward-looking document setting out progressive action across all three pillars – such as in 2000 or 2010. This was not achieved during the conference and the draft outcome fell far short of the expectations of many states, especially with regard to nuclear disarmament. Of course, the geopolitical situation makes progress on disarmament difficult. But what became even clearer during the conference than before is the lack of political will on the part of the nuclear-weapons states to do their part in advancing nuclear disarmament.

“The best outcome for the NPT RevCon would have been a forward-looking document setting out progressive action across all three pillars – such as in 2000 or 2010.”

Nonetheless, there has been progress in some components of the draft. For example, the draft contains more references to the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons than before. It also refers to the need for victim assistance and environmental remediation for past nuclear weapons use and testing, and for the first time highlights the importance of a gender perspective in nuclear policy. Finally, the draft describes follow-up mechanisms to address the issue of accountability and risk reduction in the upcoming review cycle. These are important points to refer to and build on in the next review cycle.

Elisabeth Waczek: Thank you very much for the conversation!


Jana Baldus is a Doctoral Researcher at PRIF's Research Department “International Security”.

A conversation with

Jana Baldus
Doctoral Researcher


Additional reading

Baldus, Jana/Müller, Harald/Wunderlich, Carmen (2022): The global nuclear order and the crisis of the nuclear non-proliferation regime: Taking stock and moving forward, in: Zeitschrift für Friedens- und Konfliktforschung Special Issue “Crisis of Arms Control”, DOI: 10.1007/s42597-021-00066-0

Baldus, Jana/Fehl, Caroline/Hach, Sascha (2022): NPT 2022: An Opportunity to Advance Nuclear Justice , Global Policy, 13.5.2022.

Hernández, Gabriela Rosa/Kimball, Daryl G. (2022): Russia Blocks NPT Conference Consensus Over Ukraine, Arms Control Association. Online: https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2022-09/news/russia-blocks-npt-conference-consensus-over-ukraine