Finland’s justice chancellor criticises government’s plan to lift nuclear weapons ban

The Finnish government’s proposal to repeal the country’s absolute ban on nuclear weapons lacks clarity and legal justification, according to a sharply critical assessment by Justice Chancellor Janne Salminen. The draft legislation, currently under review, has also faced formal complaints over procedural irregularities.

In a statement obtained by national broadcaster Yle, Salminen argued that the proposal leaves key decisions—such as how nuclear warheads could be brought into, transported, or stored in Finland—dangerously vague and open to interpretation. “The justifications in the proposal require significant supplementation,” the assessment emphasised.

The complaint, filed with the chancellor’s office, alleges that the defence ministry violated legal procedures in preparing the bill. It claims the impact assessments are inadequate, the consultation period was unusually short—just four weeks—despite the legislation’s major significance, and that standard preparatory guidelines were not followed. The chancellor has not yet issued a final ruling on the complaint.

Under current law, nuclear weapons are explicitly prohibited in Finland. The proposed amendment would permit their introduction, transit, or possession if linked to Finland’s military defence, NATO’s collective defence, or defence cooperation. However, the chancellor stressed that the draft fails to clarify how such decisions would be made or what role parliament would play—particularly whether the constitutional law committee would need to review the matter.

Defence Minister Antti Häkkänen (National Coalition Party) has previously declined to specify the scenarios in which nuclear weapons might enter Finland, citing the classified nature of NATO’s nuclear policy. But Salminen’s statement insisted that parliament’s right to information and principles of good legislative practice “require comprehensive justifications” for such a consequential issue.

The draft also raises questions about Finland’s potential involvement in NATO’s nuclear deterrence planning, including whether Finnish territory could be used for transit or storage. While the proposal suggests existing laws on international decision-making could apply, the chancellor noted this would exclude parliament from any meaningful role unless military force were involved. Additionally, it remains unclear whether parliamentary approval would be required for activities under the US-Finland Defence Cooperation Agreement (DCA), which governs US troop access and materiel storage but does not explicitly address nuclear weapons.

Criticism has also come from legal scholars and opposition parties. Martin Scheinin, professor of international law, called the draft poorly prepared and misleading in its constitutional implications. Opposition factions, including the Social Democratic Party (SDP), have condemned both the substance of the proposal and the process, though Prime Minister Petteri Orpo (National Coalition Party) has dismissed the criticism, insisting the repeal was “prepared as it should have been.” The SDP has pledged to vote against the bill when it reaches parliament, expected later this spring.

The consultation period for the draft ends this week.