Comparing Prototypical and Unorthodox Norm Advocacy

  • Carmen WunderlichEmail author
Part of the Norm Research in International Relations book series (NOREINRE)


Departing from the finding that Iran—an alleged “rogue state”—acts as a norm entrepreneur in selected policy fields, this chapter seeks to compare such unorthodox norm advocacy with cases of ideal-type norm entrepreneurship as identified by liberal norm scholars. Therefore, Wunderlich contrasts the peculiarities of Iranian norm entrepreneurship with two contrasting cases: A comparison with the prototypical good international citizen, Sweden, serves to reveal differences with regard to the strategies and means used to promote norms. The comparison with North Korea, another state typically alleged of violating global norms, is intended to allay the suspicion that the concept of norm entrepreneurship can be applied to all kinds of actors. In addition, it helps answer the question under what circumstances resistance to the ruling order might transform into activism or isolationism.


  1. Agius, C. (2006). The social construction of Swedish neutrality: Challenges to Swedish identity and sovereignty. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Agrell, W. (1984). The bomb that never was: The rise and fall of the Swedish nuclear weapons programme. In N. Gleditsch & O. Njølstad (Eds.), Arms races. Technological and political dynamics, (pp. 154–174). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  3. Ahlin, U. (2010). Interpellationsdebat: Sveriges agerande i frågan om nedrustning och icke-spridning, interpellation 2009/10:465 av Urban Ahlin (S).–beslut/Interpellationsdebatter1/Debatt/?did=GX10465&doctype=ip. Accessed 28 August 2015.
  4. Alani, B. (1995). Sverige och de globala kärnvapenfrågorna. NPT-konferensen: resultat och konsekvenser (UD informerar 1995:2). Stockholm: Utrikesdepartementet.Google Scholar
  5. Albright, D. (2013). A dangerous nexus: Preventing Iran-Syria-North Korea Nuclear and Missile Proliferation. Prepared testimony of David Albright, President, Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa and Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, April 11. Accessed April 28, 2017.
  6. Andrén, N. (1996). Maktbalans och alliansfrihet. Svensk utrikespolitik under 1900-tale. Stockholm: Norstedts Juridik.Google Scholar
  7. BBC. (2002, February 2). Bush’s “evil acis” comment stirs critics. Accessed April 28, 2017.
  8. Bechtol, B. (2007). Red Rogue: The Persistent challenge of North Korea. Washington, DC: Potomac Books.Google Scholar
  9. Bechtol, B. (2009). Creating instability in dangerous global regions: North Korean proliferation and support to terrorism in the Middle East and South Asia. Comparative Strategy, 28(2), 99–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Becker-Jakob, U., Hofmann, G., Müller, H., & Wunderlich, C. (2013). Good international citizens: Canada, Germany and Sweden. In H. Müller & C. Wunderlich (Eds.), Norm dynamics in multilateral arms control, interests, conflicts, and justice (pp. 207–245). Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bergenäs, J. (2010). The rise of a White Knight State: Sweden’s nonproliferation and disarmament history. Resource Document. NTI Articles, 10.02.2010. Accessed 28 April 217.
  12. Bergman, A. (2007). Co-constitution of domestic and international welfare obligations: The case of Sweden’s Social Democratically inspired internationalism. Cooperation and Conflict, 41(1), 73–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Berkol, I., & Moreau, V. (2009). Post-export controls on arms transfers: Delivery verification and end-use monitoring. Resource Document. GRIP, 2009/4. Accessed 28 April 2017.
  14. Bettiza, G., & Dionigi, F. (2014). Beyond constructivism’s liberal bias: Islamic norm entrepreneurs in a post-secular world society. EUI Working Paper MWP 2014/10. Accessed 28 April 2017.
  15. Bildt, C. (2010, May 3). Statement to the 2010 NPT RevCon, New York.Google Scholar
  16. Bildt, C., & Sikorski R. (2010, February 1). Next, the Tactical Nukes. New York Times. Accessed 28 August 2015.
  17. Birnbaum, K. (1965). Sweden’s nuclear policy. International Journal, 20(3), 297–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bjereld, U., Johansson, A., & Molin, K. (2008). Sveriges säkerhet och världens fred. Svensk utrikespolitik under kalla kriget. Stockholm: Santérus Förlag.Google Scholar
  19. Björkdahl, A. (2002). From idea to norm: Promoting conflict prevention. Lund: Lund University.Google Scholar
  20. Björkdahl, A. (2008). Norm advocacy: A small state strategy to influence the EU. Journal of European Public Policy, 15(1), 135–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Björkdahl, A. (2013). Ideas and norms in Swedish peace policy. Swiss Political Science Review, 19(3), 322–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Bleiker, R. (2003). A Rogue is a Rogue is a Rogue: US foreign policy and the Korean nuclear crisis. International Affairs, 79(4), 719–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Blom, F. (2001). Non-proliferation and disarmament assistance to Russia, Swedish peace and arbitration society. Stockholm.Google Scholar
  24. Bodström, L. (1985, August 28). Statement to the 1985 NPT RevCon, NPT/CONF.III/SR.2, Geneva.Google Scholar
  25. Brodin, K. (2016). The Undén Proposal. Cooperation and Conflict, 1(4), 18–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Brysk, A. (2009). Global good Samaritans: Human Rights as foreign policy. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Bunn, G. (1992). Arms control by committee: Managing negotiations with the Russians. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Bunn, G., & Timerbaev, R. (2005). The right to withdraw from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT): The views of two NPT negotiators. Yaderny Kontrol, 10(1–2), 20–29.Google Scholar
  29. Buszynski, L. (2013). Negotiating with North Korea. The six party talks and the nuclear issue. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Butters, A. (2010). Ahmadinejad’s answer to Obama’s nuclear summit. Resource Document. Time, 19 April 2010.,8816,1982962,00.html. Accessed 28 April 2017.
  31. Choe, I. Y. (2007, October 31). Statement to the 62nd Session of the UNGA First Committee, A/C.1/62/PV.23, New York.Google Scholar
  32. Choe, I. Y. (2009, October 27). Statement to the 64th Session of the UNGA First Committee, A/C.1/64/PV.19, New York.Google Scholar
  33. Crisis Group. (2009). North Korea's Chemical and Biological Weapons Programs. International Crisis Group ICG, Asia Report 167, 26, Brüssels.Google Scholar
  34. Dahl, A. (2002). Activist Sweden: The last defender of non-alignment. In A. Dahl & N. Hillmer (Eds.), Activism and (Non)alignment. The relationship between foreign policy and security doctrine (pp. 139–150). Stockholm: Utrikespolitiska institutet.Google Scholar
  35. Davenport, K. (2013, February 28). North Korea conducts nuclear test. Accessed 28 August 2015.
  36. DPRK. (1986, June 30). Statement of the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, S/18191, New York.Google Scholar
  37. DPRK. (1987, July 15). Statement by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the DPRK, S/18981, New York.Google Scholar
  38. DPRK. (1989, September 13). Statement by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the DPRK, S/20964, New York.Google Scholar
  39. DPRK. (1990a, August 31). Proposal by the DPRK Concerning the Safeguards Agreement and an Agreement to Assure the DPRK against the Use of the Threat of Use of Nuclear Weapon, NPT/CONF.IV/33, New York.Google Scholar
  40. DPRK. (1990b, August 30). Suggested Elements to be Included in the Final Declaration, NPT/CONF.4/MC.I/WP.3, Geneva.Google Scholar
  41. DPRK. (1995, May 9). Letter Addressed to the President of the 1995 RevCon, NPT/CONF.1995/30, New York.Google Scholar
  42. DPRK. (2007, January 24). Right of reply by the Democratic people’s Republic of Korea at the CD, Geneva. Accessed 28 August 2015.
  43. DPRK. (2010, March 2). Statement to the CD, Geneva, Unofficial Transcript. Accessed 28 August 2015.
  44. DPRK., et al. (1995, May 5). Extension of the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Submitted together with Indonesia, Iran, Jordan Malaysia, Mali, Myanmar, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Thailand and Zimbabwe: Draft Decision, NPT/CONF.1995/L.3, New York.Google Scholar
  45. Ekwall, R. (1995a, April 25). Statement to the 1995 NPT RevoCon, Main Committee I, NPT/CONF.1995/MC.1/SR.2, New York.Google Scholar
  46. Ekwall, R. (1995b, May 1). Statement to the 1995 NPT RevCon, Main Committee I, NPT/CONF.1995/MC.1/SR.6, New York.Google Scholar
  47. El Baradei, M. (2011). The age of deception: Nuclear diplomacy in treacherous times. New York: Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt and Co.Google Scholar
  48. Eliasson, J. (1995, April 20). Statement to the 1995 RevCon, NPT/CONF.1995/SR.7, New York.Google Scholar
  49. EU Council. (2003, December 12). Strategy against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Adopted by the European Council, Brüssel. Accessed 28 August 2015.
  50. Finland, & Sweden. (2002, April 11). Statement by H.E. Mr. Markku Reimaa on behalf of Finland and Sweden on non-strategic nuclear weapons at the Preparatory Committee for the 2005 NPT RevCon, New York.Google Scholar
  51. Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization, 52(4), 887–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Freivalds, L. (2004, March 16). Statement to the CD, CD/PV.951, Geneva.Google Scholar
  53. Freivalds, L. (2005, May 3). Statement to the 7th NPT RevCon, New York.Google Scholar
  54. French, P. (2005). North Korea: The paranoid Peninsula. A modern history. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  55. Garcia, D. (2006). Small arms and security: New emerging international norms. London/New York.Google Scholar
  56. Garris, J. (1973). Sweden’s debate on the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Cooperation and Conflict, 8(4), 189–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Gause, K. (2013). North Korean leadership dynamics and decision-making under Kim Jong-Un: A first year assessment. CNA Analysis & Solutions.Google Scholar
  58. Geldenhuys, D. (2004). Deviant conduct in world politics. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Gierow, K. (1990). Sverige och icke-spridningen av kärnvapen. UD informerar 1990:2. Stockholm: Utrikesdepartementet.Google Scholar
  60. Goldmann, K. (2015). Samsyn och kompromissvilja nickel till framgång i Tunisien. Resource Document. UI-bloggen, Utrikespolitiska Institutet. Accessed 28 August 2015.
  61. Habib, B. (2011). North Korea’s nuclear weapons program and the maintenance of the Songun system. The Pacific Review, 24(1), 43–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Han, C. O. (1994, June 30). Statement to the CD, CD/PV/684, Geneva.Google Scholar
  63. Han, C. O. (1996, March 21). Statement to the CD, CD/PV.731, Geneva.Google Scholar
  64. Harrison, S. (2005). Did North Korea cheat. Foreign Affairs, 84(1), 99–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Hecker, S. (2010) A return trip to North Korea’s Yongbyon nuclear complex. Reource Document. CISAC Report, 20 November 2010. Accessed 28 April 2017.
  66. Henriksen, T. (2012). America and the Rogue states. St. New York, NY: Martin’s Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Hilpert, H., & Meier, O. (2013). Charting a new course on North Korea’s nuclear programme? The options and the non-proliferation treaty. SWP Comments 19, June 2013. Accessed 28 April 2017.
  68. Holmström, M. (2006). Palme försökte aktiv säljas Boforskanoner. Resource Document. Svenska Dagbladet, 23.4.2006. Accessed 28 April 2017.
  69. Hong, J. R. (2007, October 9). Statement to the 62nd Session of the UNGA First Committee, A/C.1/62/PV.3, New York.Google Scholar
  70. Huntley, W. (2006). Rebels without a cause. North Korea, Iran and the NPT. International Affairs, 82(4), 723–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Ingebritsen, C. (2002). Norm entrepreneurs: Scandinavia’s role in world politics. Cooperation and Conflict, 37(1), 11–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Johnson, R. (1995). Indefinite extension of the non-proliferation treaty: Risks and reckonings. Acronym Report No. 7. Accessed 28.
  73. Johnson, R. (2009). Unfinished business. The negotiation of the CTBT and the end of nuclear testing. UNIDIR, Geneva.Google Scholar
  74. Jon, Y.-R. (2003, November 6). Statement to the 46th Session of the UNGA First Committee, A/C.1/58/PV.23, New York.Google Scholar
  75. Jonter, T. (2001). Sweden and the bomb: The Swedish plans to acquire nuclear weapons, 1945–1972. SKI Report, 01(33), Stockholm.Google Scholar
  76. Jonter, T. (2003). Making a historical survey of a State’s nuclear ambitions IAEA task ID: SWE C 01333, Impact of historical development of a state’s national nuclear non-proliferation policy on additional protocol. SKI Report 2003. Stockholm.Google Scholar
  77. Kang, M. C. (2008, October 31). Statement to the 63rd Session of the UNGA First Committee, A/C.1/63/PV.22, New York.Google Scholar
  78. KCNA. (2006, October 3). North Korean Foreign Ministry clarifies stand on new measure to bolster war deterrent. Korean News KCNA. Accessed 28 August 2015.
  79. Kim, C. G. (1990, October 20). Statement to the 46th Session of the UNGA First Committee, A/C.1/46/PV.20, New York.Google Scholar
  80. Kim, C. G. (1995, January 27). Statement to the Preparatory Committee of the 1995 NPT RevCon, NPT/CONF.1995/PC.IV/SR.8, Geneva.Google Scholar
  81. Kim, S. Y. (1998, October 15). Statement to the 53rd Session of the UNGA First Committee, A/C.1/53/ PV.7, New York.Google Scholar
  82. Kim, J. (2014). The North Korean nuclear weapons crisis. The nuclear taboo revisited?. London/ New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Klare, M. (1995). Rogue states and nuclear outlaws: America’s search for a new foreign policy. New York, NY: Hill and Wang.Google Scholar
  84. Krishnan, R. R. (1981). North Korea and the Non-Aligned Movement. International Studies, 20(1–2), 299–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Lamnek, S. (2001 [1979]). Theorien abweichenden Verhaltens, 7. Aufl., München: Wilhelm Fink Verlg.Google Scholar
  86. Li, H. C. (1998, October 16). Statement to the 53rd Session of the UNGA First Committee, A/C.1/53/PV.7, New York.Google Scholar
  87. Lindh, A. (2000, April 25). Statement to the 6th NPT RevCon, New York.Google Scholar
  88. Lindh, A. (2001, November 11). Statement at the Conference on Facilitating the Entry into Force of the CTBT, New York.Google Scholar
  89. Litwak, R. (2000). Rogue states and U.S. foreign policy: Containment after the Cold War. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press with Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  90. Litwak, R. (2012). Outlier states: American strategies to change, contain, or engage regimes. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press with Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  91. Lomas, P. (1991). Sweden. In H. Müller (Ed.), How Western European nuclear policy is made: Deciding the atom (pp. 190–208). Houndmills: MacMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Mallin, M. (1994). The June, 1993 Swedish draft comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty: Implications and issues for negotiations. McLean/ VA: Science Applications International.Google Scholar
  93. Manga, E. (2010). Swedish arms export. From National interest to global Utopia. New Routes, 15(3), 3–6.Google Scholar
  94. Mansourov, A. (1995). The origins, evolution, and current politics of the North Korean nuclear program. The Nonproliferation Review, 2(3), 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Mansourov, A. (2003). The Hermit Mouse Roars: North Korea’s Response to U.S. Security Policies, Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies, March 2003.Google Scholar
  96. Ministry of Foreign Affairs Iran. (2010, October 4). Spokesman Terms Iran "Forerunner of Campaign against N. Armaments". Press statement. Accessed April 28, 2017.
  97. Müller (2013). Conclusion: Agency is central. In H. Müller, & C. Wunderlich (Eds.), Norm dynamics in multilateral arms control, interests, conflicts, and justice (pp. 337–366). Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
  98. Müller, H., Below, A., & Wisotzki, S. (2013). Beyond the state: Nongovernmental organizations, the European Union, and the United Nations. In H. Müller & C. Wunderlich (Eds.), Norm dynamics in multilateral arms control, interests, conflicts, and justice (pp. 296–336). Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
  99. Müller, H., Fischer, D., & Kötter, W. (1994). Nuclear non-proliferation and global order. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  100. Müller, H., Franceschini, G., Melamud, A., Müller, D., Péczeli, & Schaper, A. (2015). A nuclear weapon-free zone in Europe: Concept–Problems–Chances. PRIF Resource Document. Accessed 28 April 2017.
  101. Myrdal, A. (1977). The game of disarmament: How the United States and Russia run the arms race. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  102. NAC. (1998, June 9). Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world: The need for a new agenda. Joint Declaration by the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Slovenia, South Africa and Sweden, A/53/138.Google Scholar
  103. Niksch, L. (2007, January 3). North Korea’s nuclear weapons development and diplomacy (CRS Report for Congress) Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  104. Nilsson, A.-S. (1991). Den moraliska stormakten: En studie av socialdemokratins internationella activism. Stockholm: Timbro.Google Scholar
  105. Olsson, T., & Åkerman, M. (2012). FOI stod bakom bulvanen. Resource Document. SvD Näringsliv, 7.3.2012.; 28 April 2017.
  106. Pak, G. Y. (1994, October 21). Statement to the 49th Session of the UNGA First Committee, A/C.1/49/PV.8, New York.Google Scholar
  107. Pak, G. Y. (2004, October 12). Statement to the 59th Session of the UNGA First Committee, A/C.1/59/PV.7, New York.Google Scholar
  108. Park, H. (2006). The rationales behind North Korean foreign policy. In L. Hagström & M. Söderberg (Eds.), North Korea policy: Japan and the great powers (pp. 38–52). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  109. Park, P. (2010). The future of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 31(1), 104–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Pirseyedi, B. (2013). Arms control and Iranian foreign policy: Diplomacy of discontent. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  111. Pollack, J. (2009). North Korea’s nuclear weapons program to 2015. In N. Busch & D. Joyner (Eds.), Combating weapons of mass destruction: The future of international nonproliferation policy (pp. 263–280). Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
  112. Prawitz, J. (1995). From nuclear-option to non-nuclear promotion: The Sweden case. Research Report no 20. Stockholm: Swedish Institute of International Affairs.Google Scholar
  113. Prawitz, J. (2003). Arms controller Alva Myrdal: Word power for world politics. In P. Wallensteen (Ed.), Alva Myrdal in international affairs (pp. 55–68). Uppsala: Uppsala Publishing House.Google Scholar
  114. Rajiv, S. (2010). Iran and the NPT RevCon 2010. Resource Document. IDSA Comment. Accessed 28 April 2017.
  115. Regeringskansliet (2015, April 27). Från svensk sida är vi måna um att kunna bidra konkret, här och nu. Sydsvenskan. Accessed 28 August 2015.
  116. Ri, T. (1990, November 30). Statement to the 1990 NPT RevCon, NPT/CONF.IV/SR.6, Geneva.Google Scholar
  117. Ri, T. (1993, March 23). Statement to the CD, CD/PV.647, Geneva.Google Scholar
  118. Ri, T. (1995, June 29). Statement to the CD, CD/PV.710, Geneva.Google Scholar
  119. Ri, T. (1999, June 24). Statement to the CD, CD/PV.829, Geneva.Google Scholar
  120. Ri, J. G.(2007, October 31). Statement to the 62nd Session of the UNGA First Committee, A/C.1/62/PV.23, New York.Google Scholar
  121. Rublee, M. (2008). Taking Stock of the nuclear nonproliferation regime: Using social psychology to understand regime effectiveness. International Studies Review, 10(3), 420–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Rublee, M. (2009). Nonproliferation norms: Why states choose nuclear restraint. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
  123. Schmalberger, T. (1991). In pursuit of a nuclear test Ban treaty: A guide to the debate in the conference on disarmament. New York, NY: UNIDIR.Google Scholar
  124. Schmidt, H.-J. (2012). Nordkorea als Nuklearmacht—Chancen der Kontrolle. HSFK Report 1/2012. Frankfurt a. M.Google Scholar
  125. Schmittchen, D. (2006). “Rogue States”—”Schurkenstaaten”. Ein stringentes US-Konzept im Kampf gegen Terrorismus und Proliferation von ABC-Waffen? Resource document. Forschungsgruppe Sicherheitspolitik. Berlin.Google Scholar
  126. Senn, M. (2009). Wolves in the woods: The Rogue state concept from a constructivist perspective. Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Shim, D. (2014). Visual politics and North Korea: Seeing is believing. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  128. Sigal, L. (1998). Disarming strangers: Nuclear diplomacy with North Korea. Princeton/NY: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  129. So, S. P. (2003). February 13). Statement to the CD. CD/PV.919, Geneva:Google Scholar
  130. So, S. P. (2011, March 10). Statement to the UN and Other International Organizations at the Conference on Disarmament, Geneva.Google Scholar
  131. Socialdemokraterna. (2010). Socialdemokraternas tolvpuntksprogram för nedrustning. En svensk offensiv mot massförstörelsevapen och för nedrustning, Stockholm. Accessed 28 August 2015.
  132. Söderlund, A. (2013, June 26). Carl Bildt överraskade—ringde "Ring P1". Aftonbladet. Accessed April 28, 2017.
  133. Suk, A. (2011). What is the root cause of the North Korean nuclear program? Asian Affairs. An American Review, 38(4), 175–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  134. Sundelius, B. (2001). The makers of Swedish security policy. In B. Huldt, T. Tiilikainen, T. Vaahtoranta, & A. Rågård-Helkama (Eds.), Finnish and Swedish security: Comparing national policies (pp. 232–258). Helsinki/Stockholm: Swedish National Defence College and the Programme on the Northern Dimension of the CFSP.Google Scholar
  135. Svenska Freds. (2012). Sweden is planning to help Saudi Arabia build an arms factors. Resource Document. Accessed 28 April 2017.
  136. Svensson, F. (2013). Sverige lämnar nedrustningssamarbete. Resource Document. OmVärlden, 24.4.2013. Accessed 28 April 2017.
  137. Sweden. (1965, September 2). Memorandum on International Cooperation for the Detection of Underground Nuclear Explosions, ENDC/154, Geneva.Google Scholar
  138. Sweden. (1983, June 14). Draft Treaty Banning any Nuclear Weapon Test Explosion in Any Environment, Submitted to the CD, CD/381, Geneva.Google Scholar
  139. Sweden. (1991, July 31). Text of a Draft Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty and its annexed Protocols, Submitted to the CD, CD/1089, Geneva.Google Scholar
  140. Sweden. (1993, December 6). Text of a Draft Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and its Annexed Draft Protocol, Submitted to the CD, CD/1232, Geneva.Google Scholar
  141. Sweden. (1995, n. d.). Proposed language on the Review of Article VI and the Eighth to Twelfth Preambular Paragraphs, NPT/CONF.1995/MC.I/CRP.14, New York.Google Scholar
  142. Sweden. (2010, March 19). Multilateral approaches to the nuclear fuel cycle. Working paper, NPT/CONF.2010/WP.7, New York.Google Scholar
  143. Sweden et al. (1985, July 15). Letter dated 15 July 1985 addressed to the provisional secretary-general of the Third NPT RevCon. Together with Denmark, Finland, Island and Norway, NPT/CONF.III/16, New York.Google Scholar
  144. Sweden et al. (1995, April 21). Article III—Safeguards. Working Paper. Together with Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and Norway. NPT/CONF.1995/MC.II/WP.2, New York.Google Scholar
  145. Sweden et al. (2000, April 27). Export controls. Working paper. Together with Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and Norway, NPT/CONF.2000/MC.II/WP.4, New York.Google Scholar
  146. Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2014, March 13). Strategic Export Control in 2013—Military Equipment and Dual-Use Items, Government Communication 2013/14:114. Stockholm. Accessed April 28, 2017.
  147. Theorin, M. B. (1985, February 5). Statement to the CD, Geneva.Google Scholar
  148. Theorin, M. B. (1988, February 2). Statement to the CD, Geneva.Google Scholar
  149. Theorin, M. B. (1991, July 25). Statement to the CD, Geneva.Google Scholar
  150. Theorin, M. (2003). Alva Myrdal and the Peace Movement. In P. Wallensteen (Ed.), Alva Myrdal in international affairs (pp. 43–54). Uppsala: Uppsala Publishing House.Google Scholar
  151. Thränert, O. (2003). Der Iran und die Verbreitung von ABC-Waffen. Berlin: SWP-Studie.Google Scholar
  152. Thunborg, A. (2005). Swedish nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament policy and the European Union. Foreign Policy in Dialogue, 17, 31–35.Google Scholar
  153. Tolf, A. (2013). Sverige och arbetet för kärnvapennedrustning—självständig aktör eller passiv medsångare i EU: skör? Stockholm: Svenska läkare mot kärnvapen, No. 123, March–April 2013.Google Scholar
  154. UN. (1983, April 8). Report of the Independent Commission on Disarmament, A/CN.10/38, New York.Google Scholar
  155. van Dassen, L. (1995). Sweden. In H. Müller (Ed.), Nuclear export controls in Europe (pp. 181–206). Brüssel: European Interuniversity Press.Google Scholar
  156. van Dassen, L. (1996). Sweden. In H. Müller (Ed.), European non-proliferation policy 1993–1995 (pp. 265–279). Brüssel: European Interuniversity Press.Google Scholar
  157. van Dassen, L. (1998). Sweden and the making of nuclear non-proliferation: From indecision to assertiveness. SKI Report 98(16). Stockholm: Norstedts Tryckeri AB.Google Scholar
  158. van Dassen, L., & Wetter, A. (2006). Nordic nuclear non-proliferation policies: Different traditions and common objectives. In A. J. K. Bailes, G. Herolf. & B. Sundelius (Eds.), The Nordic countries and the European security and defence policy (pp. 252–266), Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  159. Waldenström, L. (2005). North Korea’s juche ideology and its implications on Pyongyang’s relations with Washington 1994–2004. A North Korean perspective. Umea: Swedish Defense Research Agency.Google Scholar
  160. Wallin, L. (1991). Sweden. In R. Cowen Karp (Ed.), Security with nuclear weapons? Different perspectives on national security (pp. 360–381). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  161. Wunderlich, C., Hellmann, A., Müller, D., Reuter, J., & Schmidt, H-J. (2013). Non-aligned Reformers and Revolutionaries: Egypt, South Africa, Iran, and North Korea. In H. Müller & C. Wunderlich, 246–295.Google Scholar
  162. Wunderlich, A. (2014). A “rogue” gone norm entrepreneurial? Iran within the nuclear nonproliferation regime. In W. Wagner, W. Werner, & M. Onderco (Eds.), Deviance in international relations: “Rogue states” and international security (pp. 83–104). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. Wunderlich, C. (2008). Vom Weltgewissen zum Mitläufer ohne Profil? Schwedens wertorientierte Außenpolitik im Anpassungsdruck an europäische Positionen – Nukleare Rüstungskontrollpolitik 1985–2005. Wissenschaftliche Hausarbeit für das Lehramt an Gymnasien eingereicht dem Amt für Lehrerbildung. Frankfurt a. M. Unpublished Manuscript.Google Scholar
  164. Wunderlich, C. (2013). Theoretical approaches in the study of norms. In H. Müller & C. Wunderlich (Eds.), Norm dynamics in multilateral arms control, interests, conflicts, and justice (pp. 20–47). Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
  165. Youde, J., & Slagter, T. (2013). Creating “good international citizens”, middle powers and domestic political institutions. Seton Hall Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations, 14(2), 123–133.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Political ScienceUniversity of Duisburg-EssenDuisburgGermany

Personalised recommendations