Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Full metadata record
|dc.description||Full text not currently available on the LRA. The original paper was presented out in 2009 at the INMM Annual Meeting.||en_GB|
|dc.description.abstract||This paper focuses on non-proliferation policies and regulations through the prism of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT), a greatly understudied regime in international security relations. The treaty provides the norms and the foundations to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons around the world. The aim of the NPT within non-proliferation regime was to change states’ interests and behaviour through cooperation in the field of nuclear weapons. Ever since, most states (189 of them) have joined the NPT while a few – such as Israel, India and Pakistan – have refused to do so. North Korea first joined the NPT, later withdrew and tested its devices in 2006 thus violating the global anti-nuclear norms. This paper explores some fundamental questions: What are the limitations of the NPT in relation to nonparty states? How can the NPT as an institution bring non-party states into cooperation by regulating their nuclear behaviour? How can a framework such as the NPT further strengthen global anti-nuclear norms? Is there need to revise the NPT framework? This paper addresses the above questions through the themes of regime theory. Within regime theory, there are differences between three schools of thought, each of which emphasizes a different variable to account for international regimes: power-based realism; interest-based neo-liberalism; and norms-based constructivism. The contributions of these schools to the creation of institutions are compared and contrasted to examine the role of international institutions such as the NPT within non-proliferation regime. The paper sheds light upon both the contributions and shortcomings of regime theory and three schools of thought through a critical overview by exploring their applicability and premises in ways that may guide a future policy-oriented approach towards the NPT. The paper explores states’ security problems, and the role of great powers in the creation, sustenance or non-observance of non-proliferation norms as highlighted by the realist school of thought. The paper presents solutions to the problems by exploring neoliberals’ stress on the importance of cooperation in regulating states’ behaviour and constructivists’ stress that norms play a role in shaping states’ international behaviour. However, in devising solutions to the contradictions of non-party states, all the three schools mentioned above may make a contribution. The world will become more secure if states’ behaviour towards the acquisition of nuclear weapons is changed. States’ behaviour can only be controlled through non-proliferation regimes and credit must especially be given to neoliberal approaches. This study also presents proposals for political action. Any action by the non-party states themselves necessarily depends on the future of nuclear weapons more generally, especially the ways in which the Nuclear Weapons States could commit themselves to nuclear reduction to zero (as currently signalled by the new Obama Presidency) or on the ways to control nuclear weapons at regional level. Only through action on a global and regional level can change states’ behaviour at the domestic level||en_GB|
|dc.title||The Nuclear Non-proliferation Regime – Policies and Regulations towards Non-Party States||en_GB|
|Appears in Collections:||Conference Papers & Presentations, Dept. of Politics and International Relations|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in LRA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.