Humanitarian Disarmament State Position Tracker
October 2025 note from Yeshua Moser-Puangsuwan:
This tool is updated annually prior to the First Committee meetings of the United Nations General Assembly.
States are ranked according to their participation in Humanitarian Disarmament, and this tool is provided to support of advocacy for all our humanitarian disarmament agreements and processes.
Information is updated from the United Nations Treaties website for the Mine Ban Treaty, the Convention on Cluster Munitions, the Arms Trade Treaty and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Information on states positions on the call for a legally binding treaty on autonomous weapons is from Automated Decision Research. States position on the Political Declaration on Strengthening the Protection of Civilians from the Humanitarian Consequences Arising from the Use of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas is from the Explosive Weapons Monitor.
What's new in October 2025?
Between the First Committee meetings in 2024 and 2025, there were some significant set backs and some progress on humanitarian disarmament.
The most significant development was the withdrawal from the Mine Ban Treaty by five states, Estonia, Latvia, Finland, Lithuania and Poland. This has yet to be seriously challenged or addressed by existing states party to the convention. Despite this two new countries joined the Mine Ban Treaty during the year, Marshall Islands and Tonga.
One state acceded to the Convention on Cluster Munitions, Vanuatu.
Two states ratified or joined the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons during that time period, Ghana and Kyrgyzstan.
The Arms Trade Treaty received one ratification, Vanuatu.
The Stop Killer Robots campaign registered 3 more states calling for a legally binding convention between the number listed in the 2024 tool, and the one being released in October 2025.
The EWIPA declaration, remained at 88.
This tool is updated annually prior to the First Committee meetings of the United Nations General Assembly.
States are ranked according to their participation in Humanitarian Disarmament, and this tool is provided to support of advocacy for all our humanitarian disarmament agreements and processes.
Information is updated from the United Nations Treaties website for the Mine Ban Treaty, the Convention on Cluster Munitions, the Arms Trade Treaty and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Information on states positions on the call for a legally binding treaty on autonomous weapons is from Automated Decision Research. States position on the Political Declaration on Strengthening the Protection of Civilians from the Humanitarian Consequences Arising from the Use of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas is from the Explosive Weapons Monitor.
What's new in October 2025?
Between the First Committee meetings in 2024 and 2025, there were some significant set backs and some progress on humanitarian disarmament.
The most significant development was the withdrawal from the Mine Ban Treaty by five states, Estonia, Latvia, Finland, Lithuania and Poland. This has yet to be seriously challenged or addressed by existing states party to the convention. Despite this two new countries joined the Mine Ban Treaty during the year, Marshall Islands and Tonga.
One state acceded to the Convention on Cluster Munitions, Vanuatu.
Two states ratified or joined the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons during that time period, Ghana and Kyrgyzstan.
The Arms Trade Treaty received one ratification, Vanuatu.
The Stop Killer Robots campaign registered 3 more states calling for a legally binding convention between the number listed in the 2024 tool, and the one being released in October 2025.
The EWIPA declaration, remained at 88.
This resource page is designed to show the current position of states as related to key humanitarian disarmament treaties, declarations, and other initiatives.
See this resource for more information about humanitarian disarmament, and specific campaign pages for Control Arms (Arms Trade Treaty -- ATT), ICBL-CMC (Mine Ban Treaty -- MBT and Convention on Cluster Munitions -- CCM), ICAN (Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons -- TPNW), INEW (political declaration on explosive weapons in populated areas -- EWIPA), Campaign to Stop Killer Robots (legal instrument on autonomous weapons). See also the UN treaty database, state positions on lethal autonomous weapons (from Automated Decision Research), and states positions on the political declaration on EWIPA (from the Explosive Weapons Monitor).
1 = legally bound (full state party to treaty, or endorser of political declaration)
0.5 = signatory
0.25 = supporter of the call
The original data, which contains additional information such as whether a country has no military forces, may be viewed at this link. Scroll to the bottom of that sheet to see the date of last update.
This list may be sorted by clicking on the column headers.
See this resource for more information about humanitarian disarmament, and specific campaign pages for Control Arms (Arms Trade Treaty -- ATT), ICBL-CMC (Mine Ban Treaty -- MBT and Convention on Cluster Munitions -- CCM), ICAN (Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons -- TPNW), INEW (political declaration on explosive weapons in populated areas -- EWIPA), Campaign to Stop Killer Robots (legal instrument on autonomous weapons). See also the UN treaty database, state positions on lethal autonomous weapons (from Automated Decision Research), and states positions on the political declaration on EWIPA (from the Explosive Weapons Monitor).
1 = legally bound (full state party to treaty, or endorser of political declaration)
0.5 = signatory
0.25 = supporter of the call
The original data, which contains additional information such as whether a country has no military forces, may be viewed at this link. Scroll to the bottom of that sheet to see the date of last update.
This list may be sorted by clicking on the column headers.
This database was first constructed and is primarily maintained by Yeshua Moser-Puangsuwan. The Forum on the Arms Trade does not itself take positions, and the information presented here is the responsibility of those maintaining it. The Forum does, however, hope this resource proves valuable.