Chapter 4 examines international attempts to regulate the acquisition of weapons by those at war. The chapter examines the development of export controls, the disarmament regime, and Security Council arms embargoes as part of the normative background to the Arms Trade Treaty (2014).

The TPNW represents an unprecedented departure from current practice in that it is the first multilateral treaty to ban nuclear weapons. It is supported by 122 nations, representing a sizable contingent of the world’s population spanning various geographical divides. Although not celebrated by all nations, and vehemently opposed by nuclear-weapon states, its adoption at the UN General Assembly in July 2017 marks a fundamental departure from the status quo regarding armament matters. The primary purpose of this book was to examine the TPNW within the broader legal, diplomatic and political context in relation to the existing nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament framework in international law, exploring the influence of the Treaty from various perspectives and its potential impact on the nuclear architecture as it stands today.

The TPNW demonstrates growing support of humanitarian efforts to take action against nuclear weapons. It marks a fundamental shift by some states and individuals in the international community in their approach to addressing concerns regarding nuclear weapons and represents their willingness to challenge the status quo regarding the power of the nuclear states and their allies. Humanitarian disarmament efforts through civil society groups, in conjunction with a core group of like-minded states, have rallied together to outlaw nuclear weapons. The intention is to relegate them to the annals of history – eliminating them forever.

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons 2017 marks an important development in nuclear arms control law, diplomacy and relations between states. Adopted by the UN General Assembly on July 7, 2017, it was supported by 122 nations, representing a potential disruptor to the nuclear status quo. It is the first treaty to ban nuclear weapons outright, taking a clear humanitarian approach to disarmament. Despite its success in coming to fruition, however, it is not celebrated by all nations. The permanent members of the UN Security Council neither participated in its negotiations, nor adopted the final text. No state with nuclear weapons endorses the Treaty and indeed they openly oppose its very existence.

In 1997, the International Campaign to Ban Landmines and Jody Williams were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize ‘for their work for the banning and clearing of anti-personnel mines’.

This chapter engages with humanitarian disarmament as a concept, rather than examining its practice in any particular context. It explains and distils general critiques of humanitarianism and explores whether, and if so, to what extent, those critiques might apply in the context of humanitarian disarmament. Drawing on literature from philosophy, media studies, critical security studies and human rights, four critiques of humanitarianism are examined: the apolitical posturing of humanitarianism; humanitarianism’s complicity with militarism; humanitarianism’s imperative of action; and the way in which a humanitarian discourse sets up a ‘hierarchy of humanity’. In each instance, the chapter shows that the general critiques do have traction in the specific context of humanitarian disarmament. Nevertheless, a humanitarian discourse is not rejected outright as being a viable means by which to advance disarmament discourse. Rather, the conclusion is that humanitarianism is one possible discourse that can, and does, illuminate disarmament but that it brings its own complexities, blind spots and complexities.