The Structure and Logic of the WMD Ban Regime

  • Berhanykun Andemicael
  • John Mathiason
Part of the Global Issues Series book series (GLOISS)


The issue of how to eliminate weapons of mass destruction was a major feature of international politics at the end of the twentieth century. It was also an essential part of the debate about international relations theory. The ‘balance of terror’, the possibilities loosed by technology of weapons that could destroy all human life on earth provided an incentive to find solutions. At the same time, it was the highest expression of the realist approach to international politics, dealing as it does with the ability of a State to defend itself.


International Atomic Energy Agency Security Council Nuclear Weapon International Politics Mass Destruction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 2.
    Graham S. Pearson, The UNSCOM Saga: Chemical and Biological Weapons Non-Proliferation (London and New York: Macmillan Press, 1999), p. 65.Google Scholar
  2. 4.
    Reprinted in Stephen D. Krasner (ed.), International Regimes (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1983), p. 2.Google Scholar
  3. 5.
    Strange found five grounds for criticizing the approach: it might be a passing fad, it was imprecise, it was value-loaded and implied things that should not be taken for granted, it was too static a view of things and, finally, it was too state-centred. She argued that ‘regime was yet one more woolly concept’ that is a fertile source of discussion simply because people mean different things when they use it. Susan Strange, ‘Cave hic dragones: A Critique of Regime Analysis’, in Krasner, International Regimes, pp. 338–51.Google Scholar
  4. 6.
    Joseph Cirincione (ed.), Repairing the Regime: Preventing the Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction (New York and London: Routledge, 2000), p. 3; and Joseph Cirincione with Jon B. Wolfsthal and Miriam Rajkumar, Deadly Arsenals: Tracking Weapons of Mass Destruction (Washington, DC: Carnegie for International Peace, 2002), p. 25.Google Scholar
  5. 8.
    J. Samuel Barkin, ‘Realist Constructivism’, International Studies Review, 5 (2003), pp. 325–42.Google Scholar
  6. 9.
    Ian Hurd, ‘Legitimacy and Authority in International Politics’, International Organization, 53 (1999), p. 379.Google Scholar
  7. 10.
    Thomas Franck, The Power of Legitimacy Among Nations (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990) p. 16.Google Scholar
  8. 12.
    John Bolton, “Legitimacy” in International Affairs: The American Perspective in Theory and Operation’, Remarks to the Federalist Society, Washington, DC, 13 November 2003, I Scholar
  9. 17.
    United Nations, The Role of the United Nations in the Field of Verification: Report of the Secretary-General (New York, 1991), p. 4.Google Scholar
  10. 18.
    UNIDIR and VERTIC, Coming to Terms with Security: A Handbook on Verification and Compliance (Geneva and London: United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research and the Verification Research, Training and Information Centre, 2003), p. 1.Google Scholar
  11. 19.
    See David Fischer, History of the International Atomic Energy Agency: The First Forty Years (Vienna: IAEA, 1997), pp. 273–87; and Pearson, pp. 216–17Google Scholar
  12. 20.
    Frances Williams and Richard Wolff elaborate the problems in the July 26, 2001 issue of Financial Times, as follows:Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Berhanykun Andemicael and John Mathiason 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Berhanykun Andemicael
    • 1
  • John Mathiason
    • 2
  1. 1.Energy Agency to the United NationsUSA
  2. 2.Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public AffairsSyracuse UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations