The good news is that the final document reaffirms the principles of the treaty and the commitments of states parties to total disarmament. Unfortunately, the document primarily maintains the status quo, without addressing the weaknesses in the treaty or identifying concrete steps to promote the global elimination of nuclear weapons. The final document is a diluted version of committee drafts and, in the end, consensus could only be achieved by agreeing to the lowest common denominator. George Perkovich states, “you ended up with a final document that was a success in the sense that it moved things forward, but it was weaker in both the disarmament and nonproliferation elements because there were a few states on both sides that wanted it weaker.”¹

For the arms control community, one of the biggest disappointments is the lack of substantive progress on disarmament. Many working papers called for accelerated disarmament (with a focus on irreversible, verifiable, and transparent progress), concrete steps, and specific timeframes.² Committing to a timeframe for disarmament was unacceptable to nuclear weapons states (NWS), and the final document only contains a perfunctory reaffirmation of the commitment of NWS to pursue total disarmament—absent specific obligations or timeframes. However, it does lay the groundwork for future progress on disarmament obligations by calling on NWS to report their disarmament progress at the 2014 Preparatory Committee, and stating that the 2015 Review Conference will “take stock and consider the next steps for the full implementation of Article VI.”³

There was also a large push by civil society to include language calling for negotiations on a legally binding framework to ban nuclear weapons (e.g. a nuclear weapons convention). The final document does refer to a nuclear weapons convention (the first final document to do so), reflecting support for the idea by a majority of states parties. Such a provision is important, as it paves the way for the idea to build momentum and provides a starting point for future negotiations. Unfortunately, the final document does not call for negotiations to begin now, and a provision inviting the UN Secretary-General to convene a conference to establish a roadmap for the elimination of nuclear weapons was removed from the final document.

On a more positive note, substantive progress was made in two key areas, the legality of nuclear weapons and the 1995 Middle East Resolution. The introduction of the legality debate in the context of the NPT Review provides a new framework to encourage the elimination of nuclear weapons. Based on initiatives by Switzerland and Norway, the final document includes a provision that delegitimizes nuclear weapons by reaffirming “the need for all states at all times to comply with applicable international law, including international humanitarian law.”⁴ Although somewhat watered down from its original version⁵ , the provision builds on the 1996 International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion on the Legality on the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons and strengthens the development of a non-use of nuclear weapons norm.

The progress made on the Middle East Resolution is arguably the biggest success of this Review Conference, particularly as no progress has been made on this issue in the past fifteen years. The final document calls for the UN Secretary-General and the co-sponsors of the resolution (U.S., U.K. and Russia) to convene a conference in 2012 on the establishment of a Middle East nuclear weapon free zone. It is important to note that all regional parties are called on to attend the conference, rather than only the states that want to attend, as Egypt has called for in the past. This is significant, as this will provide a setting for all regional parties to interact with each other and perhaps will initiate a process of normalizing relations.

Overall, the Review Conference produced mixed results, but some progress is better than none. The final document is a success in that states parties worked together to achieve agreement in some areas, and it paves the way for future results. In preparation for the next review, states parties need to build on this document and begin unilateral, bilateral, and regional movement towards non-proliferation efforts and the total elimination of nuclear weapons.