A traditional approach to nuclear weapons tends to focus on State security matters and does not lend itself easily to a human rights lens. A new initiative undertaken within the Human Rights Council is changing that by offering a transitional justice framework to address the consequences of the more than 60 nuclear tests carried out by the United States in the Marshall Islands between 1946 and 1958, while the Islands were under United Nations Trusteeship System. Among those tests was Castle Bravo (1954), the first high-yield hydrogen bomb and the most powerful nuclear device ever detonated by the United States – 1,000 times as powerful as the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
Through in-country missions, wide consultation, research and dialogue, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has shed light on the human rights implications of nuclear tests, which they found to affect the right to life and health; the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment; the right to housing; the right to equality and non-discrimination; and Indigenous people’s rights. The recent report issued by the OHCHR also applies insights from a transitional justice perspective to the legacy of nuclear testing, including a recommendation that States engage effectively with nuclear regimes: the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).
These developments provide a new perspective through which one can examine nuclear treaties and the ways in which they support core pillars of transitional justice, such as guarantees of non-recurrence of human rights violations and reparation following harm. This is relevant not only in the context of the Marshall Islands, but also in other places and communities that have been impacted by more than 2,000 nuclear weapons tests.
Even though this human rights approach may be viewed with skepticism by some arms control and disarmament experts, the reality is that States respond to distinct incentives. For some States, having their human rights concerns acknowledged and respected can serve as a powerful encouragement to join and actively participate in nuclear regimes, as demonstrated by the Marshall Islands.
2024 Report Findings Regarding Human Rights and the Nuclear Legacy in the Marshall Islands
A Resolution adopted by the Human Rights Council in 2022 set in motion official missions of the OHCHR to the Marshall Islands between December 2023 and May 2024, which allowed human rights experts to gain knowledge about the challenges and barriers that the nuclear legacy poses to the full realization and enjoyment of human rights in the Marshall Islands. These consultations were complemented with written input from States, civil society organizations, academia, and individuals.
The results of this process were presented in a Report issued by the OHCHR in October 2024. According to this report, the nuclear legacy in the Marshall Islands continues to cause harm on a wide range of Marshallese human rights. To substantiate this claim, the report presents evidence gathered during the missions to the Marshall Islands, information obtained through written submissions and declassified documents, as well as through consultations with government officials from the Marshall Islands and the United States. These are summarized below in relation to relevant human rights.
Rights to life and health
The report takes the position that “[t]he right to life is intrinsically linked to the right to health” and that all persons are “entitled to the highest attainable standard of health and to the prevention, treatment, and control of diseases.” The report then explains that nuclear tests have exposed the Marshallese to radiation at life-threatening levels, followed by an elevated incidence of thyroid cancer and other thyroid diseases, as well as elevated risks of leukemia, stomach, and colon cancer. The stipulated health impacts of the nuclear legacy also include psychosocial effects, including fear, anxiety and stigma.
These impacts have disproportionally affected children, the report detailed, noting that “their smaller bodies have less overlying tissue shielding internal organs.” Gendered impacts were also recorded, with women suffering miscarriages, as well as giving birth to stillborn babies or “jellyfish babies,” which the report describes as babies “born with translucent skin and no bones.”
Right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment
The report emphasizes that the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly recognize the right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment. The report then illustrates how radioactive fallout from the tests resulted in environmental contamination, which has impacted locally grown foods and created concerns about contamination of fish stocks. The Marshallese’s need to avoid local produce and their consumption of processed products has been associated with diseases such as diabetes, hypertension, and obesity.
The report also analyzes how nuclear impacts are further compounded by climate change. Rising sea levels elicit concern about the potential nuclear waste leakage in the Runit Dome, the concrete structure housing contaminated topsoil and radioactive debris on Runit Island.
Right to equality and non-discrimination
The report cites Article 1 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination to define racial discrimination, and notes that the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has set forth that “the prohibition of racial discrimination applies to both intentional and structural discrimination, as well as discrimination in effect.” In that context, the report sets forth that several Human Rights Council mandate holders characterized the legacy in the Marshall Islands as “not only nuclear but also colonial.” Radiological contamination caused by nuclear testing has created “sacrifice zones,” which impact racially marginalized and formerly colonized peoples disproportionately.
Right to housing
According to the report, the right to housing (which the report frames as dependent on accessibility and habitability), remains unmet as a result of the nuclear legacy. Radioactive fallout has led to displacement through a two-pronged migration pattern: internally, from outer-islands to the capital, Majuro; and externally, with a significant portion of the population relocating to other countries, away from radiation and its concomitant harms. The report found that “continued displacement leads to cultural dislocation, undermining the right to participate in cultural life.”
Indigenous People’s rights
With reference to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the report underscores that the UN General Assembly “recognizes that Indigenous Peoples have the right to self-determination” and that the General Assembly “explicitly states that Indigenous Peoples should not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories and that relocation should not take place without their free, prior and informed consent.” The report further notes that “Indigenous Peoples have been disproportionately impacted by nuclear-weapon activities,” which have affected their special relationship with ancestral lands, territories, and ways of life.
According to the report’s findings, both Bikinians and Rongelapese were either relocated by the United States (with differing views as to whether consent was obtained), or forced to relocate due to radioactive contamination, respectively. The report notes that “some Bikinians and Rongelapese refrain from traditional farming due to a reluctance to cultivate land that is not their own,” impacting their cultural, social and economic situation. According to the report, there are also physical and spiritual aspects of the nuclear legacy, as illustrated by the “present-day practice of above-ground burial for their deceased, fueled by the hope of one day returning them to their home atoll.”
States’ Responses to the OHCHR Report
These issues were discussed during an official session of the Human Rights Council, on 4 October 2024. Fourteen States took the floor to share their views on the report, with the majority expressing support for continued work to address the nuclear legacy in the Marshall Islands. In fact, a new resolution was adopted within the Human Rights Council, on 10 October 2024, mandating the OHCHR to “continue to provide technical assistance and capacity-building to the Marshall Islands and to prepare subsequent reports on transitional justice measures to address the human rights implications of the nuclear legacy through a cross-jurisdictional, interdisciplinary and gender-responsive approach.”
The 2024 resolution adds a new element to the previous mandate by including consultations with Marshallese diaspora, Indigenous Peoples, and youth representatives. The OHCHR is now carrying out a series of consultations with Marshallese living in diaspora communities in the United States – many of whom are directly impacted by the nuclear legacy.
While the United States acknowledged the difficult history of nuclear testing and the hardship experienced by the Marshallese in response to the OHCHR report, it had reservations to the report. In a statement delivered at the Human Rights Council, the United States recalled that it had entered bilateral agreements with the Marshall Islands and provided more than $600 million to the affected communities for direct financial settlement of nuclear claims, resettlement funds, rehabilitation of affected atolls, and radiation-related health care costs. The United States also emphasized its concerns regarding the evidence relied upon in the report, both scientific and historical.
Connecting Human Rights and Nuclear Regimes through Transitional Justice
Overall, the 2024 report can be seen as a blueprint for a human rights approach to addressing the nuclear legacy. It incorporates a transitional justice approach in Section IV, wherein the report applies such a framework to the Marshall Islands context.
As the report details, a transitional justice framework is built on four interrelated elements: truth-seeking, justice, reparation, and guarantees of non-recurrence, including memorialization processes to honor victims. In addition to these elements, the overall objectives of prevention of future harm and the building of peaceful, just, and resilient societies, are also central to the implementation of the Human Rights Council mandate regarding the nuclear legacy in the Marshall Islands.
The report recommends several avenues for action to the Government of the Marshall Islands, the Government of the United States, the United Nations, the international community and non-State actors. Out of a list of twenty recommendations put forward by the OHCHR, the final two actions are specifically related to nuclear regimes, wherein the report recommends that:
- States pursue nuclear disarmament consistent with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT); and
- States consider ratifying or acceding to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) and the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).
Although the OHCHR report does not provide an in-depth analysis of nuclear treaties, it offers a framework to connect human rights and the nuclear regimes through the prism of transitional justice. The NPT, for example, can be considered as an instrument to prevent nuclear legacies such as the one experienced by the Marshallese. This interpretation is in line with the NPT preamble, which states “[the] need to make every effort to avert the danger of such a war and to take measures to safeguard the security of peoples.” It is also supported by Article II, through which Non-Nuclear Weapon States forgo the acquisition of nuclear weapons, and Article VI, through which States agree to “pursue negotiations in good faith” on effective measures to end the nuclear arms race and on a disarmament treaty. These provisions can help prevent the occurrence of future harms, in alignment with the core tenets of transitional justice.
The CTBT, which prohibits nuclear explosions, serves the overall purpose of prevention of future harm. Considering that the CTBT membership includes States that have conducted nuclear tests in the past but have decided to renounce to nuclear test explosions, the CTBT is also contributing to the non-reoccurrence of nuclear tests. This is a crucial matter of transitional justice, which seeks to ensure both that new human rights violations do not take place, and that previous human rights violations do not reoccur.
The linkages with a human rights approach are even clearer in the case of the TPNW, a treaty whose drafting and negotiations were informed by humanitarian principles and the experiences of individuals and communities directly harmed by nuclear detonations. The TPNW contributes to the objectives of prevention, as well as non-reoccurrence, memorialization, and reparation. For instance, the tenet of reparation is evident in Article 6 of the TPNW, which mandates States parties to “provide age- and gender-sensitive assistance” to individuals under their jurisdiction affected by the use or testing of nuclear weapons, including “medical care, rehabilitation and psychological support, and to provide for their social and economic inclusion.” This same article directs States parties to “take necessary and appropriate measures towards the environmental remediation” of areas contaminated “as a result of activities related to the testing or use of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.”
However, these treaties – which, after all, were not necessarily negotiated with transitional justice goals in mind – do not fully cover all of the core principles necessary to support a robust transitional justice framework. For example, an element of transitional justice that is currently missing in most of nuclear regimes is truth-seeking. Victims of nuclear testing are vocal about the need to fill information gaps regarding the harmful effects of exposure to ionizing radiation following a nuclear weapon detonation. At a national level, obtaining specific information can be difficult, as many nuclear-armed States have kept information about tests and their effects classified. But recent initiatives undertaken at the multilateral level may provide a path to increasing knowledge and seeking truth.
The resolution on Nuclear War Effects and Scientific Research approved by the UN General Assembly in 2024 established an independent scientific panel to examine the effects of nuclear war, including climatic, environmental and radiological effects, and their impacts on public health, global socioeconomic systems, agriculture and ecosystems. The scientific panel is expected to produce a comprehensive report, offering conclusions and identifying areas requiring future research.
This effort is also complemented by an initiative taken by Member States at the 2025 World Health Assembly, which approved a resolution calling for an updated assessment of the “effects of nuclear war on public health” to be carried out by the World Health Organization (WHO). The WHO is expected to report back to Member States by 2029; the last report issued by the Organization on the health and environmental effects of nuclear weapons dates back to 1993.
If viewed from a traditional, State-centric, national security lens, one may question if new studies on the consequences of nuclear weapons would change policies regarding nuclear use or nuclear deterrence. However, when considered through the prism of human rights and transitional justice, the value of these studies becomes clearer. They can play an important role in the lives of the people affected by those weapons by addressing the lack of information that is one source of anxiety and pain.
The affinities between human rights and nuclear regimes matter not only for the Marshall Islands, but they provide lessons for the whole world. States respond to distinct incentives and having human rights concerns acknowledged and respected in nuclear policy discussions can be a driver of engagement in nuclear regimes for some States, as the Marshall Islands demonstrated by joining the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone in March 2025, as the country marked Nuclear Victims Remembrance Day on the anniversary of the Castle Bravo nuclear test. Further research, dialogue, and action in this area has the potential to galvanize attention and, hopefully, resources to support communities and countries that were and continue to be affected by the legacy of nuclear testing.
Author’s Note: The views expressed are the sole responsibility of the author. They do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the United Nations, UNIDIR, its staff members or sponsors. The author is grateful to Fiona Galvis, James Revill, Raphael Pangalangan and Wilfred Wan for their support and comments on earlier versions.
