A push to reaffirm the global taboo on nuclear testing is faltering at the Eleventh Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, with diplomats warning that the final document may omit stronger test ban language due to geopolitical rifts.
Canada reminded delegates that a “comprehensive nuclear test ban” was the first of four measures identified in 1978 to “deprive the arms race of the oxygen on which it feeds”. Yet the 2026 Review Conference opened with the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty still not in force 30 years after it was opened for signature.
During Week 4 negotiations, non-nuclear-weapon states expressed “dissatisfaction that nuclear-armed nations have not engaged in disarmament talks mandated by the treaty”. The collapse of the New START Treaty in February 2026—“the only remaining nuclear disarmament pact between the United States and Russia”—deepened frustrations.
An initial draft of the final document said the conference “notes the grave concerns expressed at the attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities”. Wednesday’s revised draft removed that line, triggering “a backlash from Iran”. While not directly about testing, the fight over facility attacks signals how hard it is to agree on any nuclear restraint language.
The NPT itself obliges states to pursue “negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament”. With the test ban stuck and New START expired, experts are pessimistic. Karim Kamel of Open Nuclear Network told NHK he “does not foresee the conference will pass a final document”, noting that delegates are “going just to get out with no losses, as opposed to trying to secure gains”.
Whether the final text reaffirms the 1996 CTBT and calls for its entry into force, or whether objections from nuclear-armed states dilute it to a generic reference.
Two flashpoints dominated backroom talks. An early draft noted “grave concerns expressed at the attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities,” but the line was deleted in Wednesday’s draft, prompting Iran’s protest. The dispute reflects wider tensions over Iran’s nuclear program and the lack of JCPOA restoration. Delegates are split on “language on ensuring the safety of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in Ukraine amid Russia’s invasion”.
Israel, not an NPT party, and North Korea, which announced withdrawal in 2003, remain “contentious” in wording.
The IAEA’s role was repeatedly cited. Canada said global nuclear cooperation “would not be possible without the IAEA, which plays an essential role in assisting States that use or are pursuing nuclear technology”. Yet Canada also noted concern that “the IAEA will no longer be able to draw safeguards conclusions for States with a Small Quantities Protocol based on the original text”, urging states to amend them.
With the U.S. calling the NPT the treaty that “underpinned the nonproliferation regime… and reinforced the international safeguards system”, failure to address Iran and Ukraine risks eroding confidence. As Morocco warned in the PrepCom, “Failure of the 2026 Review Conference was not an option, as it would undermine the Non-Proliferation Treaty”.
The expiration of New START in February 2026 removed the last U.S.-Russia arms control pact. Morocco told the PrepCom that “effective dialogue on disarmament was key” because “any use of nuclear weapons would have catastrophic humanitarian consequences”. It added: “The risk of the use of nuclear weapons could be eliminated only through elimination of the weapons themselves, by way of and immediate and time-bound nuclear disarmament process”.
A working paper by 18 states plus the EU urged “advancing the objective of stopping fissile material production for nuclear weapons”, reviving efforts for a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty—another disarmament step listed by Canada in 1978.
Yet consensus is elusive. An expert with Open Nuclear Network predicted the conference would not adopt a final document, citing low-level representation: “the representation of participating countries is not as high-level as it used to be”. He said delegates aim “to get out with no losses, as opposed to trying to secure gains”.
