After the failure of 191 states parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons to reach a consensus on a final outcome document at the recent NPT review conference, disarmament experts and senior diplomats are looking to nuclear-weapon-free zones as the most effective “bottom-up” mechanisms remaining to reduce global atomic risks.

The experts and diplomats gathered in Vienna, Austria, to mark the 20th anniversary of the Treaty of Semipalatinsk, which established the Central Asian Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone.

Organisers and speakers noted that with NWFZs currently shielding the entire Southern Hemisphere alongside key adjacent regions, strengthening these existing treaties would provide a viable strategy for stabilising volatile borders.

According to them, by locking in non-possession at the regional level, non-nuclear states can systematically strip away geographic operating space from nuclear-armed nations, containing the risk of accidental or intentional escalation from the ground up.

The analysts pointed to the Protocols of the Treaty of Tlatelolco in Latin America and the Treaty of Pelindaba in Africa as case studies.

Speaking at a high-level symposium on Wednesday organised by Open Nuclear Network and Global Neighbours, in partnership with the Vienna School of International Studies, Mukhtar Tileuberdi, the permanent representative of Kazakhstan to the United Nations, restated that regional accords offer immediate, legally binding security architecture while global grand bargains remain paralysed by intense geopolitical rivalries among major powers.

Mr Tileuberdi explained that “when global agreements are stalled, it is these regional zones that safeguard entire continents from the threat of nuclear deployment”.

He added, “They represent a concrete commitment to international peace, proving that regional diplomacy can erect legal barriers against atomic weapons even when major nuclear powers are locked in confrontation.”

Meanwhile, the panel discussion acknowledged that a structural vulnerability limits the real-world efficacy of the world’s five major nuclear-weapon-free zones (the conditional and legally fragile nature of the negative security assurances provided to them by nuclear-armed states).

Additionally, a panel of legal scholars and diplomatic practitioners observed that while regional treaties strictly bind local signatories to non-possession, the written guarantees from nuclear powers promising not to use atomic weapons against the NWFZs are undermined by unilateral “interpretive declarations”.

“The core issue is that these security guarantees are often treated by nuclear weapon states as conditional political statements rather than permanent, legally binding obligations,” said Andreas Persbo, director of the ONN. “Without formal, uncompromised, and ratified protocols attached to these regional treaties, non-nuclear states are left legally exposed to the shifting doctrines of nuclear-armed capitals.”