Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Graham S. Pearson, The UNSCOM Saga: Chemical and Biological Weapons Non-Proliferation (London and New York: Macmillan Press, 1999), p. 65.
Reprinted in Stephen D. Krasner (ed.), International Regimes (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 1983), p. 2.
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.
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.
J. Samuel Barkin, ‘Realist Constructivism’, International Studies Review, 5 (2003), pp. 325–42.
Ian Hurd, ‘Legitimacy and Authority in International Politics’, International Organization, 53 (1999), p. 379.
Thomas Franck, The Power of Legitimacy Among Nations (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990) p. 16.
John Bolton, “Legitimacy” in International Affairs: The American Perspective in Theory and Operation’, Remarks to the Federalist Society, Washington, DC, 13 November 2003, Ihttp://www.state.gov/t/us/rm/26413.htm
United Nations, The Role of the United Nations in the Field of Verification: Report of the Secretary-General (New York, 1991), p. 4.
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.
See David Fischer, History of the International Atomic Energy Agency: The First Forty Years (Vienna: IAEA, 1997), pp. 273–87; and Pearson, pp. 216–17
Frances Williams and Richard Wolff elaborate the problems in the July 26, 2001 issue of Financial Times, as follows:
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2005 Berhanykun Andemicael and John Mathiason
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Andemicael, B., Mathiason, J. (2005). The Structure and Logic of the WMD Ban Regime. In: Eliminating Weapons of Mass Destruction. Global Issues Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230005549_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230005549_1
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-42931-8
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-00554-9
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)