NEWS CENTER

新聞中心

From Hegemonic Arms Control to Universal Human Adherence: A Fundamental Comparison Between the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the Human Creation Convention

發布時間：

2026-03-13

From Hegemonic Arms Control to Universal Human Adherence
A Fundamental Comparison Between the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the Human Creation Convention

Sun Zuodong

The world today stands at a critical crossroads for security order and technological ethics. A sharp question has been raised by many: Is there a contradiction between criticizing the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons for its hegemony and double standards, and advocating the Human Creation Convention that calls for setting red lines for technology? The answer is crystal clear: there is no contradiction at all. On the contrary, the two positions are consistent in principle and entirely unified in logic, representing two diametrically opposed governance philosophies. One is a hierarchical rule of monopoly by the powerful, the other a convention of equal governance for all humanity; one is a hegemonic order of "I have it, you don’t", the other a survival pact of "jointly abiding by bottom lines". To put it in the simplest everyday terms: the former means "I can have a kitchen knife, but you are forbidden to", while the latter means "none of us make weapons that destroy families, and we all live in peace".

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, known as the NPT for short, is a universally recognized core legal instrument for arms control in the international community. Opened for signature on July 1, 1968, it entered into force on March 5, 1970, and was confirmed to be of indefinite duration at the 1995 Review Conference. With 191 state parties currently, it is the most widely participated international arms control treaty in the world. The treaty establishes three pillars: preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons, promoting nuclear disarmament, and facilitating the peaceful use of nuclear energy, and in form, it possesses extensive international legitimacy and binding force.

Yet in terms of institutional design and practical operation, the NPT is inherently marked by the characteristics of monopoly by early possessors and hierarchical constraints. Taking January 1, 1967, as the time node, the treaty artificially divides the world into two hierarchical identities: "nuclear-weapon states" and "non-nuclear-weapon states", forging a rigid international hierarchical structure. Under the treaty, nuclear-weapon states pledge not to transfer nuclear weapons to non-nuclear-weapon states nor assist them in developing such weapons; non-nuclear-weapon states, in turn, commit to not manufacturing or acquiring nuclear weapons and to accepting mandatory safeguards by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The essential logic of this set of rules is: countries that acquired nuclear weapons first may retain them legally, while those that pursue security and development later must abandon such efforts entirely.

This is analogous to a scenario in daily life where a small number of people, having seized tools first, immediately formulate rules to bar latecomers from owning them, and use these rules to safeguard their own advantageous position. A kitchen knife is an essential daily tool for every household; banning ordinary people from owning kitchen knives does not solve the problem of violent crimes, but only exposes the arbitrariness and governance incompetence of the rule-makers. The problem with the NPT does not lie in its original aspiration of preventing nuclear disasters and safeguarding world peace, but in its unequal rights, unbalanced obligations and unjust rules. It upholds the vested interests of a handful of countries and reinforces an international order dominated by power politics, making it difficult to truly achieve universal security and lasting peace. This is the profound reason why it has been subject to persistent questioning and unable to fundamentally resolve the risk of nuclear proliferation.

In stark contrast to such hierarchical and monopolistic rules, the Human Creation Convention proposes a bottom-line ethics of equality for all humanity, adherence by all subjects and application across all fields. The Convention does not target any specific country, restrict the legitimate right to development, deprive the reasonable right to security, nor resort to the double standard of "what I do is allowed, what you do is not". Instead, it imposes the most fundamental and straightforward constraints on the purpose and boundaries of "creations": humanity invents technology and develops tools to serve and benefit people, not to harm, threaten or destroy them.

The core stance of the Human Creation Convention is that all subjects, regardless of a country’s strength, the timing of its technological development or the scale of its capital, are equal and jointly abide by a single red line for life – Creations shall not harm humans, and wisdom shall not annihilate life. It does not ban kitchen knives, legitimate self-defense, the peaceful use of nuclear energy or scientific and technological innovation, but firmly opposes the transformation of tools into lethal weapons that destroy humanity and threaten civilization. Its logic is clear and just: it is not that I forbid you to have something, but that none of us cross the line; it is not that the powerful are exempt while the weak are strictly regulated, but that all are treated equally and bound without discrimination. This is true fairness, true justice, and a genuine stance that stands for the common future of all humanity.

A side-by-side comparison of the NPT and the Human Creation Convention reveals their fundamental differences at a glance:

First, differing standpoints. The NPT stands for the vested interests of the powerful, safeguarding the monopolistic advantages and hierarchical order of a small number of countries; the Human Creation Convention stands for the survival of all humanity, protecting the common security of the entire human race and the bottom line of civilization.

Second, differing logics. The former follows the logic of "I have it, you don’t; hierarchical control; rule-making by the powerful"; the latter adheres to "equality for all; joint adherence to bottom lines; co-governance and shared benefits".

Third, differing goals. The former pursues a balance of power and a monopolistic position, achieving so-called security through suppression; the latter pursues the safety of life and the perpetuation of civilization, realizing lasting peace through co-governance.

Fourth, differing visions. One is about the private use of tools and rule-setting by power; the other is about the joint governance of public tools and a shared future for all.

What I have always opposed is not rational security cooperation and risk control, but double standards that cloak hegemony under the guise of fairness. What I advocate is not unregulated expansion and abuse of power, but universal human principles of equality for all, regardless of strength. Opposing the hegemonic logic of the NPT and advocating the concept of joint adherence in the Human Creation Convention are highly unified in their underlying logic: opposing the mentality of "only magistrates are allowed to set fires, while common people are forbidden to light lamps", and advocating that "we all refrain from bringing trouble upon ourselves"; opposing monopoly and privilege, and upholding equality and justice.

From kitchen knives to nuclear bombs, from nuclear energy to artificial intelligence, the underlying logic remains the same: tools themselves are innocent; the guilty party is the hegemonic logic of abusing tools. Security cannot be achieved through deprivation, and fairness alone can bring lasting peace. The NPT is a "ban on weapons" imposed by the powerful on the weak, while the Human Creation Convention is a "protective talisman" for humanity to safeguard itself. One sows division and hierarchy, the other pursues unity and survival; one upholds the interests of a minority, the other guards the future of all.

Human civilization has reached a point where technological power is sufficient to destroy itself. What we truly need is not a hegemonic rule of monopoly by the powerful, but a life convention of equality for all; not a hierarchical order of layered control, but a community with a shared future for mankind that jointly abides by bottom lines. The historical limitations of the NPT have become increasingly evident, while the Human Creation Convention represents the future direction: people-centered, life as the bottom line, equality as the cornerstone, and co-governance as the path. Only by abandoning hegemonic thinking, renouncing double standards, respecting sovereign equality and adhering to the red line of survival can humanity truly break free from the security predicament and move towards lasting peace and a common future.

Copyright © 2023 哈爾濱奧博醫療器械有限公司   中企動力 | SEO標簽   營業執照   醫療器械生產許可證  互聯網藥品信息服務資格證書   (黑)-非經營性-2016-0017