The 2025 Humanitarian Disarmament Forum convened civil-society campaigns, researchers, and practitioners at the Church Centre for the United Nations to take stock of people-centred disarmament efforts and align strategies ahead of the UN First Committee debates.
Tone-setting: civil society’s cross-cutting message
Proceedings unfolded in the slipstream of a joint civil-society statement delivered at UNHQ on 17 October—widely referenced throughout the Forum. As Bonnie Docherty (Human Rights Watch) put it on behalf of nearly 100 campaigns: “Humanitarian disarmament has made a critical difference… The people-centred approach aims to prevent and remediate arms-inflicted human suffering and environmental harm.” She urged governments to “act now to push back against the threats to international law and help humanitarian disarmament achieve its full potential.” These lines framed the Forum’s emphasis on protecting civilians, defending existing norms, and accelerating new ones where gaps persist.
Nuclear weapons: humanitarian consequences and the TPNW momentum
A major session was devoted to nuclear weapons, focusing on the growing humanitarian discourse that challenges nuclear deterrence doctrines. The discussion revisited the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear use: health, environmental, and developmental, and reaffirmed that any detonation, accidental or deliberate, would produce suffering “no nation or institution can adequately address.”
Speakers highlighted the significance of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), which entered into force in 2021 and has now reached 70 ratifications, signalling the steady consolidation of a new normative framework. Setsuko Thurlow, a Hiroshima survivor, sent a recorded message reminding delegates that:
“Humanitarian disarmament begins with empathy. To ban nuclear weapons is to recognise the sanctity of human life over the illusion of security built on annihilation.”
Campaigners from ICAN (International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons) and PAX Netherlands emphasised the need to operationalise the TPNW’s positive obligations: victim assistance, environmental remediation, and international cooperation. These provisions, they argued, represent the “moral core” of humanitarian disarmament: addressing harm, not just prohibiting weapons.
Several participants criticised renewed nuclear-weapons modernisation programmes and the deterioration of arms-control frameworks, including the demise of the INF Treaty and uncertainty over New START. A youth delegate from Kazakhstan stated, “Each investment in nuclear modernisation is an investment against our future.” Others warned of new AI-driven command, control and communications systems that may shorten decision-making timelines and increase the risk of accidental launches. Linking the nuclear and AI agendas, a panellist from SIPRI noted: “Automation may not only accelerate the speed of warfare but the speed of catastrophe.”
Explosive Remnants of War (ERW) and urban explosive harm
A recurring thread was the deadly, long-tail impact of Explosive Remnants of War: unexploded and abandoned ordnance that continue to kill and maim long after fighting ends. ERW are governed by Protocol V to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), which obliges parties to clear hazards, share information, and assist affected communities. Participants used the ERW lens to underscore obligations for clearance, risk-education, and victim assistance in contemporary conflicts.
The Forum also linked ERW to today’s broader pattern of explosive harm in cities. Attendees highlighted the 2022 Political Declaration on the Use of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas (EWIPA), which is a landmark policy instrument committing states to curb the use of heavy explosive weapons in towns and cities and to track, mitigate, and address direct and reverberating effects. Several civil-society speakers pressed for rigorous national implementation, data collection on civilian harm, and defence-sector due-diligence to reduce harm upstream in supply chains.
Autonomous weapons (“killer robots”) and the role of AI
The most animated exchanges centred on lethal autonomous weapons systems (LAWS) and accelerating battlefield autonomy. Forum interventions echoed the UN Secretary-General’s repeated call for urgent international rules by 2026 and his warning that “the autonomous targeting of humans by machines is a moral line that must not be crossed.” Participants contrasted that normative clarity with slow progress in the CCW and welcomed General Assembly-led processes as more inclusive avenues for lawmaking.
The real-world backdrop is stark: reporting this year shows rapid AI-enabled autonomy in conflicts (notably Ukraine and Gaza), while diplomats and experts warn that governance is lagging. Forum discussants pointed to these developments as evidence that policy timelines must compress, not drift. Several noted Reuters’ summary that over 200 autonomous weapon systems are already active globally and highlighted the SG’s 2026 benchmark to catalyse states.
Civil-society coalitions at the Forum including the Stop Killer Robots campaign reiterated their treaty demand: prohibit systems that apply force without meaningful human control, prohibit systems that target people, and regulate all other autonomy to ensure human control in use of force. The coalition’s platform, long familiar to HDF participants, again served as the baseline around which state-level appetite for a legally binding instrument is being tested.
Governance choices: where to negotiate, and how fast to negotiate
A strategic session assessed venues and tactics. The consensus was pragmatic: continue to press within the CCW where possible but prioritise inclusive General Assembly tracks that allow voting: avoiding consensus traps that let a single state stall progress. This mirrors guidance shared earlier in 2025 by leading advocates (Mines Action Canada, Control Arms, ICAN, PAX) urging “inclusive forums” and implementation-first strategies while challenging profit motives that fuel armament. Erin Hunt’s reminder: “Norms must be applied equally”—was quoted to underline the need for consistent accountability across conflicts and allies.
Cross-cutting risks: supply chains, finance, and implementation
Speakers tied together ERW, EWIPA and autonomy through three cross-cutting risk areas:
- Implementation gaps. Even where norms exist (e.g., ERW/Protocol V; EWIPA declaration), civilian protection falters without national legislation, reporting, and resourced clearance/assistance. Forum participants argued for binding harm-tracking methodologies and regular public reporting to move from endorsement to measurable practice.
- Technology governance. The rise of off-the-shelf AI, modular drones, and software-defined targeting was flagged as a step-change in diffusion and speed. Attendees referenced UN and media analyses showing autonomy’s spread and warned that delay risks normalising machines selecting and engaging targets.
- Finance and due diligence. Building on 2025 advocacy, panellists urged applying human-rights due diligence to defence-sector finance and supply chains to curb incentives that accelerate harmful capabilities and to reward compliance-oriented innovation.
Takeaways and next steps
On nuclear weapons
The Forum reaffirmed that nuclear weapons remain the most catastrophic threat to humanity and the environment, and that humanitarian disarmament must continue to challenge doctrines of deterrence. Participants urged states to strengthen the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) by increasing ratifications, ensuring implementation of its positive obligations on victim assistance and environmental remediation, and amplifying the testimonies of survivors. Delegates called for dialogue between nuclear-armed and non-nuclear states to develop risk-reduction and transparency measures, particularly concerning the integration of artificial intelligence in nuclear command and control systems. The Forum’s next steps include promoting regional nuclear-weapon-free zones, reinforcing the humanitarian framing in future First Committee discussions, and ensuring that disarmament policy is grounded in empathy, justice, and long-term human security.
On ERW
The Forum called for renewed investment in survey, clearance, and risk-education in line with Protocol V obligations, and for more systematic survivor-centred assistance. Practitioners emphasised that clearance without long-term victim assistance and environmental remediation leaves communities trapped in partial recovery.
On EWIPA
Participants urged states that endorsed the 2022 Political Declaration to publish national implementation plans, incorporate no-strike policies that account for wide-area-effect munitions, and institutionalise civilian-harm tracking with remedial actions. Civil society committed to benchmarking practice against declaration commitments and sharing open methodologies for casualty recording and reverberating-effects assessments.
On autonomous weapons / AI
The Forum backed a General Assembly-anchored process to deliver a legally binding instrument by 2026 that:
- Prohibits systems that apply force without meaningful human control and any that target people;
- Requires human control, predictability, and accountability for all other autonomy in targeting and engagement;
- Integrates Article 36 weapons-review standards, transparency measures, and restrictions on data/compute for prohibited functions.
This aligns with civil-society platforms and the Secretary-General’s timetable, while acknowledging state divisions.
Given consensus deadlock at the CCW, the Forum favoured First-Committee/UNGA pathways that allow votes and wide participation, complemented by regional diplomacy and national legislation to build momentum from the ground up.
Conclusion
At the Church Centre, the humanitarian disarmament community converged around a clear through-line: protect civilians now, by clearing the past’s explosives, constraining today’s urban explosive use, and preventing tomorrow’s dehumanised warfare driven by AI. The Forum’s message to governments is unmistakable: heed the evidence, implement the commitments already made, and keep humans, not algorithms, in control of life-and-death decisions. Or, in the Secretary-General’s terms, do not cross that moral line.