As the negotiations at the UN entered their penultimate day there were remaining statements on the legal provisions to be included in the treaty before discussions moved on. During those statements the Holy See, representing the Catholic Church, called for provisions in the treaty to assist with resettlement of people displaced by nuclear weapons. The Solomon Islands called for the treaty to be actively promoted through a programme of disarmament education.
The talks then moved into a session of interactive discussion, where delegates were able to engage with each other and speakers from civil society, rather than just making statements one after another.
The session started with speakers from the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), International Lawyers Association Against Nuclear Arms (ILAANA) and Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF). The questions and discussion then took place informally and were not necessarily the formal positions of the states involved.
During the discussions Mexico, Brazil and South Africa raised the issue of how each part of the treaty worked to enforce other parts, and raised the potential of institutional arrangements to offer support for states in meeting their obligations. Mexico asked if the International Court of Justice (ICJ) should be included in the preamble of the treaty, as suggested by states earlier in the week. ILAANA said that if it causes issues there is no need for the ICJ to be referenced.
Guatemala raised the issue of Nuclear Weapons Free Zones and whether elements of the treaties which have established them could be transferable. WILPF agreed that elements of these treaties provide a firm basis. During discussion around the compatibility of a ban treaty with existing frameworks, it was confirmed by WILPF that a new treaty would be compatible with the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
Venezuela noted the two approaches becoming apparent during the week: while some states favour a simple prohibition to be followed by something more comprehensive, others favour a prohibition which sets the basis for disarmament, elimination and the verification of both. Iran noted that there are no provisions for verification or monitoring in the NPT. Mexico said that the nuclear-armed states would have to be included, something unlikely in the short term. WILPF said there are many paths to disarmament and the treaty should leave them all open.
In the afternoon session speakers from Article 36, Gauker Mukhatzhanara, from the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, and Zia Mian, from Princeton University, participated. During the discussions Ecuador asked how states will define terms such as ‘assistance’ and ‘transit’. While Iran and South Africa support definitions, time constraints of negotiations were raised. Mexico noted the NPT does not contain definitions.
The discussions moved on to cover issues including the institutional arrangements needed to ensure compliance and how to engage with a state wanting to join the ban without being a signatory to the NPT. Brazil said that the treaty would need to be able to adapt to changes in the future.
The final day of the first round of talks takes place on Friday where delegates will discuss the institutional arrangements around the treaty as well as the arrangements for the second session, which will begin in June.