Nuclear Proliferation and Non-Proliferation

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacques E.C. Hymans
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Crucial Role ◽  
Domestic Politics ◽  
Nuclear Proliferation ◽  
Nuclear Explosive ◽  
Comparative Case Studies ◽  
The 1960S ◽  
Neoliberal Institutionalism

Nuclear proliferation became an increasingly major concern after France and then China joined the nuclear “club” in the 1960s. However, it was not until India’s “peaceful nuclear explosive” test of 1974 that a real sense of potential worldwide crisis emerged, which also spawned a substantial amount of serious writing on the issue. The basic puzzle facing the study of nuclear proliferation is why there is a considerable and persistent disparity between the number of nuclear weapons-capable states and the number of actual nuclear weapons states. Three early works that represented crucial conceptual breakthroughs in the struggle toward a proper descriptive inference of the dynamics of proliferation are William Epstein’s The Last Chance (1976), Stephen M. Meyer’s The Dynamics of Nuclear Proliferation (1984), and Opaque Nuclear Proliferation (1991), edited by Benjamin Frankel. More contemporary political science work features attempts by each of the major international relations paradigms to tackle the proliferation puzzle: realism, psychological constructivism, neoliberal institutionalism, liberalism, and sociological constructivism. While scholars disagree over a host of issues, a consensus on the dynamics of nuclear proliferation may be discerned. In particular, there are five points on which most recent works converge: that proliferation has been historically rare; that we cannot take the demand for nuclear weapons for granted; that domestic politics and identity considerations play a crucial role in shaping proliferation choices; and that theory-guided, in-depth comparative case studies are the most appropriate means of advancing the state of our knowledge at this point in time.

1. International Relations Theory and the Middle East

2019 ◽  
pp. 21-38
Author(s):  
Fred H. Lawson
Keyword(s):  
Middle East ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Crucial Role ◽  
Structural Realism ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
English School ◽  
Alternative Perspective ◽  
The Many ◽  
High Degree ◽  
Neoliberal Institutionalism

This chapter discusses the different theories and approaches that characterize the study of international relations. Mainstream theories focus on the ways that states interact with one another in circumstances where no overarching authority governs their behavior — in other words, under conditions of anarchy. These theories include structural realism, neoliberal institutionalism, and the scholarship on relational contracting. An important alternative perspective — the English School — argues that, even under anarchic conditions, there is a high degree of orderliness in world affairs. Meanwhile, proponents of constructivism assert that states take shape in specific historical contexts, and that the conditions under which states coalesce and become socialized to one another play a crucial role in determining how they conceive of themselves and formulate their basic interests. Scholars of the Middle East have so far addressed only a fraction of the many theoretical debates and controversies that energize the field of international relations.

Problems of Proliferation: U.S. Policy and the Third World

1983 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 194-215 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. F. Goheen
Keyword(s):  
Case Studies ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Third World ◽  
Nuclear Proliferation ◽  
National Policy ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Third World ◽  
The U.S

The issue of nuclear proliferation is replete with problems to which there are no surefire solutions. In this essay, this troublesome terrain is examined in three different but complementary ways: first, through case studies of the nuclear dealings of the U.S. with India and Pakistan; second, in a broad review of incentives toward and dampers on the spread of nuclear weapons; and third, in terms of implications for national policy.

Multiple Perspectives and Comparative Case Studies of Crisis Decision Making

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Patrick Houghton
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Domestic Politics ◽  
Vantage Point ◽  
Cuban Missile Crisis ◽  
Multiple Perspectives ◽  
Rational Actor ◽  
Theoretical Perspectives ◽  
Organizational Perspective ◽  
Comparative Case Studies

Crisis decision making is characterized by a profound degree of uncertainty, the centralization of power, increased communications and argumentation both within and between organizations, management and eventual resolution of the problem, and a period of lesson-drawing. Deeper understanding of different cases of crisis decision making is enhanced by using contrasting theoretical “cuts.” There are four major approaches to crisis decision making: the rational actor approach, the cognitive perspective, the bureaucratic-organizational perspective, and the domestic politics approach. Three case studies—the Cuban missile crisis, the Yom Kippur crisis, and the Iran hostage crisis—can be examined from the vantage point of each of these four theoretical perspectives, as each theory adds something valuable to our overall understanding of the nature of crisis itself.

Supply to Deny: The Benefits of Nuclear Assistance for Nuclear Nonproliferation

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 282-298 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca Davis Gibbons
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Nuclear Explosion ◽  
Nuclear Proliferation ◽  
Nuclear Nonproliferation ◽  
Nuclear Technology ◽  
Recent Scholarship ◽  
Nuclear Assistance

Abstract Recent scholarship on nuclear proliferation finds that many forms of nuclear assistance increase the odds that recipient states pursue nuclear weapons programs. While these studies may help us understand select cases of proliferation, they overshadow the role of nuclear supply in bolstering global nonproliferation efforts. After the risks of nuclear assistance became well-known following India's nuclear explosion in 1974, most major suppliers conditioned their assistance on recipients joining nonproliferation agreements. Case studies of states’ decision-making regarding these agreements illustrate how the provision of nuclear technology has been an effective tool in persuading states to join such agreements, the most important of which is the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). By joining the NPT, states strengthen the global nonproliferation regime and increase the costs of any potential future decision to proliferate. The offer of nuclear assistance has done far more to bolster global nuclear nonproliferation efforts than recent research suggests.

Nuclear Ambiguity and International Status

2019 ◽  
pp. 126-150
Author(s):  
Rohan Mukherjee
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Nuclear Proliferation ◽  
Policy Goal ◽  
Special Position ◽  
Best Response ◽  
The Status ◽  
The 1960S ◽  
International Status

India’s abstinence from nuclear weapons through the 1960s continues to puzzle political scientists who study the causes of nuclear proliferation and historians who study India’s specific path to nuclear weapons. This chapter argues that India’s nuclear interregnum of the 1960s is best explained by understanding the status benefits that nuclear ambiguity as a component of a non-aligned foreign policy bestowed upon India. India’s best response to an external nuclear threat and internal domestic pressure to build the bomb was not to actually go nuclear but rather to publicly keep the option open while simultaneously pushing for disarmament as a serious foreign policy goal. This strategy gave India a special position in the international community as a scientifically advanced and potentially powerful yet essentially peaceful nation. Nowhere was this clearer than in India’s contribution to debates in the Eighteen Nation Committee on Disarmament (ENCD) convened by the United Nations between 1962 and 1969.

Japan, 1952–1980

2018 ◽  
pp. 79-109
Author(s):  
Alexander Lanoszka
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Domestic Politics ◽  
Nuclear Proliferation ◽  
The United States ◽  
Military Alliance ◽  
The Military

Many scholars would hold that a robust military alliance as well as strong anti-nuclear norms in domestic society would make any nuclear proliferation-related behaviour unlikely on the part of Japan. This chapter challenges such arguments, showing that the alliance with the United States did not fully inhibit Japan’s nuclear ambitions since Japan ratcheted up its interest in enrichment and reprocessing technologies in the late 1960. Indeed, Japan’s nuclear interest piqued amid concerns that the military alliance was weakening. Moreover, although the alliance did discourage some level of interest in nuclear weapons, the United States was reluctant to coerce Japan directly on this issue. Domestic politics and—to a lesser extent—prestige considerations were arguably a greater influence on Japan’s nuclear decision-making in the 1970s than alliance-related ones.

19. International law

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Reus-Smit
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Laws Of War ◽  
Real Effect ◽  
Western Countries ◽  
Theoretical Approaches ◽  
Neoliberal Institutionalism

This chapter examines debates surrounding the nature and efficacy of modern international law. It begins by discussing the reasons why international societies construct institutions, and why different sorts of institutions have emerged in different historical contexts. It then considers the nature and origins of the modern institution of international law, its relationship with the practice of multilateralism, and the recent cosmopolitanization of the global legal order. It also explores the laws of war and concludes with an overview of different theoretical approaches to international law such as realism, neoliberal institutionalism, and constructivism. Two case studies are presented: the first is about whether international law is an expression of Western dominance and the second is about individual criminal accountability in non-Western countries. There is also an Opposing Opinions box that asks whether international law has any real effect on the nature and conduct of international relations.

The intervention taboo(s): Strategy and normative invalidation

2017 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 557-580 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle Bentley
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Bill Clinton ◽  
Barack Obama ◽  
Presidential Rhetoric ◽  
State Sovereignty ◽  
Rhetorical Strategy ◽  
Strategic Narratives ◽  
Comparative Case Studies ◽  
Moral Expectation

AbstractIntervention comprises one of the most contentious issues in International Relations. This controversy results from the way normative understanding is structured around two key, but mutually exclusive, taboos: the moral expectation to respond in cases of humanitarian need and the protection of state sovereignty. In examining this dilemma, this article asks: what happens to the construction of rhetorical strategy, where that strategy seeks to justify intervention (or not), within a binary normative environment? It is argued that actors can only successfully construct a rhetorical case by engaging in, what is termed here, normative invalidation. In a binary situation, actors cannot adhere to both taboos. These taboos are so compelling, however, that actors must necessarily invalidate or neutralise any taboo not adhered to. This is discussed in relation to the Strategic Narratives paradigm and comparative case studies on the presidential rhetoric of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

Introduction

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vipin Narang
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Cold War ◽  
International Relations ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Nuclear Proliferation ◽  
Valuable Insight ◽  
Nuclear Strategy ◽  
International Stability ◽  
Insight Into

This chapter lays out the volume's main arguments in brief. Contrary to the usual focus on superpowers and Cold War nuclear competition, the chapter proposes a different dynamic. It asks what strategies and choices certain states will make about their nuclear weapons and how those decisions about nuclear strategy can affect international relations and conflict. Examining the decisions that regional nuclear powers—such as China, India, Pakistan, Israel, France, and South Africa—have made about their arsenals thus far, and their resulting behavior, helps address these questions. Regional nuclear powers, for systematic and predictable reasons, choose clearly identifiable nuclear postures and these postures matter to a regional power's ability to deter conflict. These countries' nuclear choices, therefore, provide valuable insight into the crucial challenges of contemporary nuclear proliferation and international stability.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document