The concept of "humanitarian approaches to nuclear disarmament" has gained considerable traction over the past decade. At the same time, the humanitarian approach has a long history in the field of disarmament, having been part of the foundations of disarmament and arms control agreements since the nineteenth century. The 1868 Saint Petersburg Declaration on explosive projectiles, for instance, referred to the necessity of "alleviating as much as possible the calamities of war." The Geneva Protocol, which opened for signature in 1925, made reference to a humanitarian imperative when it called for the banning of chemical and biological weapons on the ground that they had been "justly condemned by the general opinion of the civilized world."

More recently, the international community agreed on a Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (which, for a time, was colloquially referred to as the "inhumane weapons convention"). The Convention on Cluster Munitions and the Anti-Personnel Landmine Convention banned certain weapons considered by the international community to be inhumane by their very nature. The extension of this same logic and principle to nuclear weapons, as yet another compelling reason for their elimination, was the next step.

It was just over a decade ago, in 2013, that the first conference on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons took place in Oslo, Norway. Governments, international organizations and civil society came together to discuss and address the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of the use of nuclear weapons. It was an overdue conversation, but one that had been called for since 1945 - the year nuclear weapons became part of our collective reality.

And yet, also since the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclear weapons have been held up, by those who possess them, as the ultimate guarantor of the security of the State. At the same time, it has been clear that they can never be a guarantor of the security of the people - the citizens of those States. To the contrary, no adequate humanitarian response to any nuclear weapon detonation would be possible.

This has been well understood. And yet the primacy of the State in nuclear weapons policy has historically prevailed. Recently, however, there has been important shifts in this paradigm. Instead of a discussion that begins and ends in a State-centric context, humanitarian approaches to nuclear disarmament have placed emphasis on the lived experiences of the survivors of nuclear explosions.

This group includes both the victims of the atomic bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki - and the stories of the hibakusha. It also includes those who have suffered from the multigenerational impacts of nuclear testing on affected communities and the environment. It is based on meticulous scientific research. In fact, such humanitarian approaches to nuclear disarmament can really be said to begin with the work of the hibakusha to tell their stories and raise awareness.

Diplomatic discourse has, as a result, benefited greatly from the inclusion of these considerations. They have made the arguments in favour of nuclear disarmament more compelling, more real, and more personal.

The humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons are catastrophic and indiscriminate, contained neither in time nor in space. The effects of a nuclear explosion in a populated area would unleash an unimaginable humanitarian and environmental catastrophe. No State can be adequately prepared to address what the International Committee of the Red Cross described as the "immediate humanitarian emergency nor the long-term consequences of a nuclear weapon detonation in a populated area, nor provide appropriate assistance to those affected."⁽¹⁾

And such effects would not respect national borders, instead spreading far beyond site of the detonation. As the tragic aftermath of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has shown, those that are exposed to a nuclear explosion but are not immediately killed are likely to suffer from grave, long-term health consequences. It is for these two reasons that nuclear disarmament remains the United Nations' highest disarmament priority.

It is for that reason, that I have been heartened by the changes in the legal landscape over the past decade, most notably in the form of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), which was opened for signature in 2017 and entered into force in 2021. It is the first multilateral treaty to comprehensively ban all nuclear-weapons related activities and was the first new multilateral nuclear disarmament treaty of any sort in over two decades. It also has a clear focus on the victims of the use and testing of nuclear weapons. Indeed, it owes its existence to, among others, the dedicated efforts and persistence of the hibakusha.

However, it is my firm view that discussions on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons should not be confined to the TPNW's States Parties and its supporters. Like nuclear weapons themselves, this is an issue that affects all inhabitants of our planet. We all have a stake in pursuing meaningful and workable approaches to international peace and security that integrate human, national and common security - not just State security. Work related to the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons are a necessary part of that effort. This is, to say the least, an area of mutual concern, regardless of nationality or treaty-status.

Today, the world is currently facing multiple challenges. Geopolitical tensions are continuing to rise. Distrust has replaced dialogue. As a result, we are again facing a world of acute and daily nuclear risk, fueled by dangerous nuclear rhetoric. The guardrails we have erected - the international disarmament and non-proliferation regime - are under severe strain.

With the fast-approaching eightieth anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we have an important opportunity to remind ourselves of the existential risks posed by nuclear weapons. I remain thankful for the courage of the hibakusha in keeping the memory of those terrible events alive - courage that was recently recognized in the form of a Nobel Peace Prize. The United Nations Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, has pledged to keep the message of the hibakusha alive and continue to spread their message: we need nuclear disarmament now.

I recognize that this is not easy to do in times of tensions and insecurities. Yet it is precisely in such times that we should reaffirm our commitment to humanitarian disarmament and that we should amplify global efforts to protect civilians from the effects of nuclear war. In so doing, we should also reaffirm that nuclear war is not a niche disarmament issue or a peace and security issue that is out of our hands. It would have cataclysmic impacts on human lives, on the environment, on sustainable peace and on development. The ever-present threat posed by nuclear weapons casts a shadow over all that we do, and their elimination is therefore in all our interests.

I sincerely hope that Hiroshima and Nagasaki, in cooperation with the United Nations and its agencies, will continue to convey the stark reality of the atomic bombings, clearly demonstrating the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons to people around the world and to civil society.