Jaroslav Krasny
Profile:
Jaroslav Krasny is a professor at Nagasaki University, Research Center for Nuclear Weapons Abolition (RECNA). He previously worked at the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) in the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Programme.  

For the Treaty to Have a Truly Transformative Effect

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) embodies ethical ideals grounded in humanitarian imperatives—the experiences of hibakusha and the need to prevent future nuclear catastrophes—and represents a groundbreaking step toward nuclear disarmament. Nuclear weapons are the most inhumane and devastating weapons ever invented and used by human kind. Their destructive power and the long-term effects of radiation inflict profound suffering on victims. Therefore, for the TPNW to become a success, it is essential to make continuous efforts toward achieving the ultimate goal of nuclear abolition.

From March 3–7, 2025, the Third Meeting of States Parties to the TPNW was held at the United Nations Headquarters in New York[1]. Both in the conference hall and during side events, strong determination for a world free of nuclear weapons was clearly demonstrated. Nonetheless, significant challenges remain—chief among them, how to bridge the deep divide between ideals and the current geopolitical reality.

In today’s international security environment, the path to nuclear disarmament is fraught with difficulties, and a willingness to confront numerous obstacles head-on is necessary. To achieve a truly transformative effect, the TPNW must engage more directly with the complex realities of contemporary international security. This article is not intended to cast doubt on the sincerity or passion of the States Parties or the civil society actors who support the treaty. Rather, while sharing that passion, the author would like to identify what may be necessary to help realize those ideals.

Recognizing and Engaging with Geopolitical Realities

Under the TPNW nuclear-armed states shall eventually dismantle their arsenals. However, in reality, none of the nuclear-armed states have joined the TPNW, and it is difficult to imagine that they will do so in the near future. In fact, most nuclear-armed states and countries under the “nuclear umbrella” have expressed clear opposition to the treaty[2]. Even under such circumstances, the legal and normative significance of the TPNW should not be underestimated. Although it lacks legal binding force on non-States Parties, the TPNW contributes to shaping normative expectations within international law and symbolizes the global consensus that regards nuclear weapons as inhumane[3].

At the same time, we must confront the reality that nuclear deterrence remains the core of the security policy of nuclear-armed states. The TPNW urges the rejection of nuclear deterrence policy, yet a deep rift persists between its States Parties and the nuclear-armed countries. How can this divide be overcome? The most difficult, yet most critical task is for TPNW States Parties to establish substantive dialogue with nuclear-armed states regarding the risks and limits of nuclear deterrence.

Recent international conflicts—such as the use of cluster munitions and incendiary weapons[4] in Ukraine—highlight the limited effectiveness of treaties when parties involved lie outside their frameworks. Similarly, in the case of nuclear weapons, the TPNW has only limited influence on states outside its scope. Thus, discussions on nuclear weapons must involve building inclusive dialogue platforms that take into account the security concerns of nuclear-armed states. This does not mean denying the moral arguments regarding the inhumanity of nuclear weapons; rather, it is about using those arguments to create a realistic foundation for sustained diplomatic engagement.

Avoiding Division and Embracing Pluralistic Dialogue

Moral appeals play an important role in nuclear disarmament. In Japan in particular, such appeals are underpinned by the historical experiences of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In author’s view, the political and military leaders of nuclear-armed states should visit Nagasaki and Hiroshima and witness firsthand the long-term consequences of the atomic bombings. These effects do not disappear over time.

That said, the roots of the issue run deep. In today’s society, nuclear weapons are not easily visualized or encountered in daily life, leading to a weakening of public consciousness. Nuclear weapons continue to exist in silence; we pray they are never used, yet they remain deployed. This is the nuclear reality in which we live.

Amid such adversity, what should we do to deepen the significance of the TPNW in a broader context? Above all, it is vital to maintain a posture of pluralistic dialogue, not only asserting one’s own position but also listening to opposing views. The true spirit of diplomacy lies not in blame or exclusion, but in persuasive engagement based on mutual understanding. Progress in nuclear disarmament requires not only strong conviction but also inclusive dialogue among a diverse range of actors, including and especially nuclear-armed states.

Building Bridges, Not Walls

Discussions around the TPNW risk becoming a space for self-affirmation among like-minded states and organizations. Of course, solidarity is essential—but effective disarmament can only be achieved through the participation of actors who possess both the capability and the will to implement it. Past successes, such as the Chemical Weapons Convention[5] and the Biological Weapons Convention[6], were all made possible through the active involvement of key stakeholders.

Public awareness activities by civil society are crucial in fostering social consciousness. However, in diplomatic negotiations, they must be complemented by rigorous logic, mutual respect, and a willingness to compromise. These are not conflicting elements—they are mutually reinforcing. What matters most is that the TPNW community does not become inward-looking, but instead continues to engage constructively with external perspectives, especially dissenting ones.

Ultimately, international conferences and advocacy efforts related to the TPNW must serve as bridges. If the treaty is to mature into a globally influential legal framework, it must serve as a venue for inclusive participation and sustained diplomatic engagement.

The road ahead is difficult, and there is no quick path forward. However, through continued dialogue—even with those who hold opposing views—we can take one step at a time toward a more peaceful and secure world. In Nagasaki, a place deeply marked by the memory of the atomic bombings, we share a unique responsibility. That responsibility is to inherit and act upon the wisdom, humility, and unwavering determination that hibakusha have demonstrated. The author sincerely hopes that the TPNW will continue to embody these values and play a vital role in the international disarmament framework.

Reference
[1] United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs, “Third Meeting of States Parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (2025)”
https://meetings.unoda.org/-msp/treaty-on-the-prohibition-of-nuclear-weapons-third-meeting-of-states-parties-2025.

[2] CBS News, “US Urges Nations to Withdraw Support for UN Nuclear Weapons Prohibition Treaty,” October 22, 2020
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-urges-nations-to-withdraw-support-for-un-nuclear-weapons-prohibition-treaty-ap/.

[3] International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), “Nuclear Weapons Are Illegal,” ICAN Australia, February 2, 2021.
https://icanw.org.au/nuclear-weapons-are-illegal/.

[4] Digital Forensic Research Lab, “Russian War Report: Incendiary Munitions in Mariupol,” Atlantic Council, May 20, 2022.
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/russian-war-report-incendiary-munitions-in-mariupol/.

[5] United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs, “Chemical Weapons Convention”
https://treaties.unoda.org/t/cwc.

[6] United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs, “Biological Weapons Convention”
https://treaties.unoda.org/t/bwc.