Advertisement

Understanding the Puzzle of Unequal Recognition: The Case of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

  • Caroline Fehl
Part of the Palgrave Studies in International Relations Series book series (PSIR)

Abstract

Struggles for recognition have long constituted a central focus of discussion in Political Theory, as reflected in the work of Charles Taylor (1994), Nancy Fraser (1997; Fraser and Honneth, 2003), and, above all, Axel Honneth (1992; 1996; 2004). More recently, the debate has crossed the disciplinary boundary into the field of International Relations (IR). A growing number of International Relations (IR) scholars draw on it to explore how the desire of state and non-state actors to have their identities or social status recognized by others can drive and shape international conflicts (e.g. Agné et al., 2013; Greenhill, 2008; Lindemann and Ringmar, 2012).1

Keywords

International Relation Nuclear Weapon International Relation Participatory Equality Recognition Theory 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Agné, H., Bartelson, E. Erman, T. Lindemann, B. Herborth, O. Kessler, C. Chwaszcza, M. Fabry, and S.D. Krasner (2013) Symposium’ The Politics of Recognition’, International Theory, 5:1, 94–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albin, C. (2001) Justice and Fairness in International Negotiation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
  3. Bellany, I. (1977) ‘Nuclear Proliferation and the Inequality of States’, Political Studies, 25:4, 594–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carnahan, B. M. (1987) ‘Treaty Review Conferences’, The American Journal of International Law, 81:1, 226–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Daase, C. (2003) ‘Der Anfang vom Ende des nuklearen Tabus’, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen, 10:1, 7–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Der Spiegel (1969)’ sperrvertrag: Alles Quatsch’, 1/2 (6 January).Google Scholar
  7. Dhanapala, J. (2005) Multilateral Diplomacy and the NPT: An Insider’s Account (Geneva: UN Institute for Disarmament Research).Google Scholar
  8. Dombey, N. (2008) ‘The Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty: Aims, Limitations and Achievements’, New Left Review, 52, 39–66.Google Scholar
  9. Donnelly, J. (2006) ‘Sovereign Inequalities and Hierarchy in Anarchy: American Power and International Society’, European Journal of International Relations, 12:2, 139–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Du Preez, J. (2006) ‘Half Full or Half Empty? Realizing the Promise of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty’, Arms Control Today, 36:10, 6–12.Google Scholar
  11. Dunne, T. (2003) ‘Society and Hierarchy in International Relations’, International Relations, 17:3, 303–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Epstein, W. (1976) The Last Chance: Nuclear Proliferation and Arms Control (New York: Free Press).Google Scholar
  13. Falk, R. (1977) ‘Nuclear Weapons Proliferation as a World Order Problem’, International Security, 1:3, 79–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Franceschini, G. (2012) The NPT Review Process and Strengthening the Treaty: Peaceful Uses, Non-Proliferation Papers No. 11, February (Paris et al.: EU Non-Proliferation Consortium).Google Scholar
  15. Fraser, N. (1997) Justice Interruptus: Critical Reflections on the ‘Postsocialist’ Condition (New York: Routledge).Google Scholar
  16. Fraser, N. and A. Honneth (2003) Redistribution or Recognition: A Political-Philosophical Exchange (London: Verso).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Frederking, B., K. Motl, and N. Timilsina (2009) ‘Authority in World Politics: Nuclear Proliferation in Iran and North Korea’, Journal of International and Global Studies, 1:1, 72–99.Google Scholar
  18. Goldblat, J. (2002) Arms Control: The New Guide to Negotiations and Agreements (London: Sage).Google Scholar
  19. Greenhill, B. (2008) ‘Recognition and Collective Identity Formation in International Politics’, European Journal of International Relations, 14:2, 343–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Handl, G. (2010) ‘The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Regime: Legitimacy as a Function of Process’, Tulane Journal o f International and Comparative Law, 19:1, 1–39.Google Scholar
  21. Hassner, P. (2007) ‘Who Killed Nuclear Enlightenment?’, International Affairs, 83:3, 455–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hobson, J. M. and J. C. Sharman (2005) ‘The Enduring Place of Hierarchy in World Politics: Tracing the Social Logics of Hierarchy and Political Change’, European Journal of International Relations, 11:1, 63–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Honneth, A. (1992) ‘Integrity and Disrespect: Principles of a Conception of Morality Based on the Theory of Recognition’, Political Theory, 20:2, 187–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Honneth, A. (1996) The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).Google Scholar
  25. Honneth, A. (2004) ‘Recognition and Justice: Outline of a Plural Theory of Justice’, Acta Sociologica, 47:4, 351–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hummel, A. (2012) ‘Recognition, the Non-Proliferation Regime, and Proliferation Crises’, in T. Lindemann and E. Ringmar (eds), The International Politics of Recognition (Boulder, CO: Paradigm), 171–87.Google Scholar
  27. Ikenberry, G.J. (2001) After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order After Major Wars (Princeton: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
  28. Krause, J. (2007) ‘Enlightenment and Nuclear Order’, International Affairs, 83:3, 483–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Küntzel, M. (1992) Bonn und die Bombe. Deutsche Atomwaffenpolitik von Adenauer bis Brandt (Frankfurt a. M.: Campus).Google Scholar
  30. Lake, D. (2009) Hierarchy in International Relations (Ithaca: Cornell University Press).Google Scholar
  31. Lindemann, T. and E. Ringmar (eds) (2012) The International Politics of Recognition (Boulder, CO: Paradigm).Google Scholar
  32. Müller, H. (2003) ‘Germany and WMD proliferation’, Nonproliferation Review, 10:2, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Müller, H. (2005) The 2005 NPT Review Conference: Reasons and Consequences of Failure and Options for Repair, Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission, Paper No. 31 (Stockholm: The Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission).Google Scholar
  34. Müller, H. (2008) ‘The Future of Nuclear Weapons in an Interdependent World’, The Washington Quarterly, 31:2, 63–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Müller. H. (2010) ‘Between Power and Justice: Current Problems and Perspectives of the NPT Regime’, Strategic Analysis, 34:2, 189–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Müller, H., U. Becker-Jakob, and T. Seidler-Diekmann (2012) ‘Regime Conflicts and Norm Dynamics: Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Weapons’, in H. Müller and C. Wunderlich (eds), Norm Dynamics in Multilateral Arms control: Interests, Conflicts, Justice (Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press), 100–56.Google Scholar
  37. NPT Review Conference (1995) Decision 1: Strengthening the Review Process for the Treaty, NPT/CONF. 1995/32 (Part 1), Annex.Google Scholar
  38. Nye, J. S. (1985) ‘The Logic of Inequality’, Foreign Policy, 59, 123–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Okimoto, D. I. (1975) ‘The 1975–76 Debate Over Ratification of the NPT in Japan’, Asian Survey, 15:4, 313–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Paul, T. V. (2003) ‘Systemic Conditions and Security Cooperation: Explaining the Persistence of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Regime’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 16:1, 135–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Quester, G. (1973) The Politics of Nuclear Proliferation (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press).Google Scholar
  42. Rauf, T. (2000) ‘An Unequivocal Success? Implications of the NPT Review Conference’, Arms Control Today, 30:l6 (July/August).Google Scholar
  43. Reus-Smit, C. (2005) ‘Liberal Hierarchy and the License to Use Force’, Review of International Studies, 25:5, 71–92.Google Scholar
  44. Reus-Smit, C. (2011) ‘Struggles for Individual Rights and the Expansion of the International System’, International Organization, 65:2, 207–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Rost Rublee, M. (2009) Nonproliferation Norms: Why States Choose Nuclear Restraint (Athens: University of Georgia Press).Google Scholar
  46. Rühle, M. (2007) ‘Enlightenment in the Second Nuclear Age’, International Affairs, 83:3, 511–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Scarlott, J. (1991) ‘Nuclear Proliferation After the Cold War’, World Policy Journal, 8:4, 687–710.Google Scholar
  48. Scott, S. (2008) ‘The Problem of Unequal Treaties in Contemporary International Law: How the Powerful Have Reneged on the Political Compacts Within Which Five Cornerstone Treaties of Global Governance Are Situated’, Journal of International Law and International Relations, 4:2, 101–26.Google Scholar
  49. Shaker, M. I. (1976) The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons: A Study Based on the Five Principles of UN General Assembly Resolution 2028 (XX) (thesis) (Geneva: Université de Genève).Google Scholar
  50. Smith, R. K. (1987) ‘Explaining the Non-Proliferation Regime: Anomalies for Contemporary International Relations Theory’, International Organization, 41:2, 253–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Taylor, C. (1994) ‘The Politics of Recognition’, in A. Gutmann (ed.), Multiculturalism: Examining the Politics of Recognition (Princeton: Princeton University Press), 25–73.Google Scholar
  52. UN General Assembly (1965) Resolution 2028 (XX) Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, A/RES/2028 (XX) (19 November).Google Scholar
  53. UN General Assembly (2011) Resolution 66/32, Promotion of Multilateralism in the Area of Disarmament and Non-Proliferation, A/RES/66/32 (2 December).Google Scholar
  54. Verona, S. (1978) ‘Structural Negotiating Blockades to Disarmament’, Security Dialogue, 9:3, 200–9.Google Scholar
  55. Weber, K. (2000) Hierarchy Amidst Anarchy: Transaction Costs and Institutional Choice (Albany: State University of New York Press).Google Scholar
  56. Welch Larson, D. (1998) ‘Exchange and Reciprocity in International Negotiations’, International Negotiation, 3, 121–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wendt, A. (2003) ‘Why a World State Is Inevitable’, European Journal of International Relations, 9:4, 491–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Caroline Fehl 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Caroline Fehl

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations