The Humanitarian Initiative on Nuclear Weapons: Moral Idealism, Posturing, or Transformative Change of the Global Nonproliferation Regime?

The paper aims to explore the assumptions underlying the humanitarian initiative to abolish nuclear weapons and the potential implications of negotiating a nuclear ban treaty among non-nuclear weapons states in 2017. It does so by comparing the humanitarian initiative with the two prior process upon which it builds – the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty and 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions. It argues that although the legal and moral reasoning behind the three initiatives and the political dynamics of drawing support for the treaties among small and middle-sized states, especially in the Global South, are similar, the use patterns and strategic rationale behind the weapons are different and thus a legal prohibition might have more limited stigmatization effects than those of the two prior bans on conventional weapons. The paper explores the factors (including domestic political dynamics, transnational networks, and strength of the anti-nuclear movement) that could lead to support for a new nuclear ban treaty among NATO countries that currently oppose it. The paper concludes by considering the potential impact of a future nuclear ban treaty on the larger nuclear non-proliferation regime under different scenarios of state support.