First Committee Monitor, Vol. 23, No. 6
Editorial: A New World Order Requires Bold Action
9 November 2025
By Emma Bjertén and Laura Varella
Last month, the First Committee began its work amongst the bleak landscape of wars and genocides. During these past five weeks of meetings, several states emphasised the challenges stemming from record-high military spending and condemned military solutions being prioritised over socioeconomic justice, which has relevance for all of the violence going on outside the conference rooms. Costs were of great concern also for the work in the First Committee, where the UN liquidity crises forced delegations to carefully consider expenses associated with tabled resolutions. In the last month, states raised concerns over the deconstruction of international law and the resulting deterioration of international security. Finland’s President emphasised how many states noted that the “world order, balance and dynamics are changing.” The voting in the First Committee shows that this is true, and gives an indication of what direction the international community is heading.
The shifting political position of the United States (US), after the re-election of the current president, manifested in the voting results. While some states during the weeks of meetings approached this political shift by simply referring to the country as “Trump,” the US called for votes on resolutions that had previously been adopted by consensus, or voted against resolutions it had voted in favour of or abstained on in previous years. That was the case regarding resolution L.3, “Prevention of an arms race in outer space,” which provides the umbrella framework for all other resolutions on outer space and since 2020 had been adopted without a vote. This year, Israel and the US called for a vote and voted against the resolution. The US also requested a vote and voted against resolutions L.11, “Relationship between disarmament and development,” and L.13, “Observance of environmental norms in the drafting and implementation of agreements on disarmament and arms control,” which in recent years have been adopted without a vote.
Nuclear testing
Last week, the US president instructed the US war department to immediately resume nuclear testing on an “equal basis” with China and Russia—a statement with factual incorrectness which we problematised in the last issue. Activists, experts, and policy makers have worked night and day trying to limit the damaging effects of this statement based on misinformation. The US was the only country to vote against L.43, “Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty.” In its explanation of vote, the US said it did so “because several paragraphs are inconsistent with U.S. policy or are undergoing policy review.” It argued that “the United States is not currently pursuing CTBT ratification and therefore cannot support calls for ratification and entry into force.” It is not the first time the US voted no on this resolution; the last time was in 2020 during the previous Trump administration. Last year, no state voted against the resolution but before that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) was often the single state voting no in the last ten years.
While the CTBT might not have contributed to nuclear disarmament per se, it has played a key role in preventing and prohibiting nuclear testing. Signed by 187 states, it has made nuclear testing taboo. The Arms Control Association warned that this indication that the US intends to resume nuclear testing “will trigger strong international opposition that could unleash a chain reaction of nuclear testing ... and blow apart the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.” Already, Russia has said that it will resume nuclear testing if the US does. Despite many states expressing concern over the upcoming Review Conference of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and being vocal against unacceptable nuclear rhetoric, surprisingly few states specifically mentioned or reacted to this blow to the prohibition on nuclear testing, which took decades to achieve.
Landmines
Another example of undermining established taboos was the action on landmines in the fifth week of the First Committee. Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, which recently initiated processes to withdraw from the Mine Ban Treaty, all abstained from voting on L.30, “Implementation of the convention on the prohibition of the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines and on their destruction.” They all provided explanations for their withdrawal such as “defense needs,” the “changing security environment,” and Russia’s illegal war and aggression against Ukraine, while emphasising their commitments to international humanitarian law (IHL) and/or to demining . Poland argued that as a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), it must preserve a “credible defense posture”. Finland promised it will not deploy landmines in times of peace. But IHL and disarmament treaties are not a smorgasbord from which states can pick and choose what and when they follow. Anti-personnel landmines were banned because of their indiscriminate nature at the time of use and for their humanitarian impact decades after conflict. They impact societies whether it is at war or not. In addition to these states that are withdrawing from the Treaty, Ukraine’s decision to “suspend” its obligations under the Mine Ban Treaty could also set a very dangerous precedent allowing states to “pause” humanitarian obligations in wartime—“precisely when they are needed most,” as the International Campaign to Ban Landmines highlighted in its statement during the civil society session. This action, which is not permitted under the Treaty, is something Mines Action Canada problematises, which is further explained in this issue in the article "The Elephant at the First Committee." w
is something Mines Action Canada problematises,
which is further explained in this issue in the article “The Elephant at the First Committee.”rther explained in this issue in the article “The Elephant at the First Committee.”
Artificial intelligence
Amidst threats to resume nuclear testing and states withdrawing from humanitarian disarmament treaties, another issue of concern during this First Committee was artificial intelligence (AI). The new resolution L.56, “Possible risks of integration of artificial intelligence into command, control and communication systems of nuclear weapons,” proposed by Mexico, was adopted by a vote of 115-8-44. Argentina, Burundi, the DPRK, France, Israel, Russia, the UK, and the US voted against (see the report on nuclear weapons for further details). The resolution is an important step towards addressing the terrifying risks of incorporating AI into nuclear systems and it signals grave danger that nuclear-armed states and some of their nuclear-supported allies voted against or abstained on the text.
Additionally, resolution L.46, “Artificial intelligence in the military domain and its implications for international peace and security,” proposed by the Netherlands and the Republic of Korea, was adopted by a vote of 163-5-5. The US, which voted in favour of the resolution last year, decided to vote against it this year. In its explanation of vote, the US argued that the resolution “risks starting down the unwelcome and unhelpful path of creating a global governance regime designed to institute centralised control over a critical technology and the United States of America's warfighters.” The US even claimed that “attempting to determine the future of AI at the UN would be a gross violation of national sovereignty and would stifle innovation.” Despite the US’ opposition, and the additional negative votes by Burundi, the DPRK, Israel, and Russia, the resolution received overall support by states. Its adoption will result in the convening of a three-day informal exchange in Geneva in 2026—which will be a valuable opportunity to discuss the risks associated with military AI that were highlighted in the UN Secretary-General’s report and stakeholder’s submissions, including by WILPF.
Gender
This year marks the 25th anniversary of the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and Security (WPS). While people from all over the world came to New York to celebrate the achievements made in the last 25 years, the discussion at the First Committee were more like an attempted murder of the WPS agenda. Instead of using this date as an opportunity to commit to further work on gender, some delegations delivered explanations of vote against the relevance of a gender perspective in the First Committee.
For instance, Iran, during discussions on the nuclear weapons cluster, opposed the reference to gender perspectives in preambular paragraph (PP) 22 of resolution L.55, “Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world: accelerating the implementation of nuclear disarmament commitments.” Argentina, when explaining its vote on L.51, “The illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its aspects,” reiterated its commitment to women’s rights but claimed that “using a sector specific approach to human rights generates inequalities that run counter to the nondiscrimination goal that we’re pursuing.” The US, when addressing resolution L.20, “Open-ended working group on security of and in the use of information and communications technologies 2021–2025 established pursuant to General Assembly resolution 75/240,” reiterated its opposition to the gender references in the report of the Open-ended Working Group on Security of and in the Use of Information and Communications Technologies, arguing that references to gender “have no place in a report on cyberspace stability,” despite the relevance of gender in this discussion already being broadly recognised by states and civil society.
During the last day of voting, the US further elaborated on its new policy on gender, insisting “upon using clear and accurate language that recognizes women are biologically female and men are biologically male” and dissociating itself from all paragraphs referring to gender. The US went as far as opposing calls for equal participation of women and men in disarmament processes, or equitable geographical and gender representation, stressing that it only supports decisions about participation on the basis of merit.
It is important to talk about gender in relation to disarmament, weapons, and war, since people are not necessarily targeted by violence because of their sex, they are rather targeted because of the socially constructed characteristics of women, men, trans, non-binary, and gender-non conforming people. Violence often relates to how gender roles are constructed, performed, and expressed in relationships of and between different groups. It is important that other states oppose and prevent the backtrack of hard-fought work to bring gender perspectives into First Committee discussions. Member states and allies have to step up and do more to actively champion gender perspectives and challenge statements that only takes us further away from “leaving no one behind” and provides us with ineffective policies. Whatever states views are regarding this matter, there is a reality outside the UN building where people who don’t fit into the gender binary or gender norms are being targeted and killed. If states don’t recognise different groups and gender minorities, their policies will be ineffective, and they will not succeed in their efforts regarding arms control, disarmament and security. To distance themselves from language on gender is like bragging about being bad at governing.
The need for action
The last hours of the First Committee provided a good summary of the exchanges over the past five weeks. Israel interrupted Cuba during its explanation of vote on a resolution by raising a point of order to complain that the delegate of Cuba was wearing a lanyard with the Palestinian flag and Keffiyeh pattern, arguing that while cultural attire and national symbols are permitted at the UN official meetings, the keffiyeh and the Palestinian flag are not part of Cuba’s traditional attire. Delegations including Cuba, Egypt, and Jordan responded by defending delegates’ right to wear such attire. Jordan said the Palestinian Keffiyeh is not a political tool but a piece of heritage and a reminder of people’s rightful struggle for freedom and dignity. Egypt said no delegation has the liberty to interfere with other delegations’ attire, including with signals of political solidarity with situations of gross violations of international law. It said that if the Committee was to meet the next day, it believed that a considered portion of the chamber would have showed up wearing the Palestinian Keffiyeh.
In his last intervention, the delegate of Iran said he was ashamed that the UN has not been able to uphold international law and has failed to act to stop the genocide in Gaza. He said he was personally anguished that he can’t explain to his own child why the world remains silent and why he did nothing when this crime unfolded and he was at the UN.
In the wake of the new world order, delegations will have to decide whether they will carry out “business as usual” or if they will use the tools available to them to uphold international law. The First Committee is a central place in the United Nations framework to promote peace and defend diplomacy over war. Amidst increased armed conflicts and militarisation worldwide, the role of this Committee, and the delegates working on it, will be key to ground international affairs on the path of dialogue and cooperation, and to secure a peaceful future for all.
[PDF] ()