| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
068705
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
185995
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), its evolution over the past five decades, and the dissatisfaction of the non-nuclear states within it, can be analyzed by focusing on different understandings of power. Within the various concepts of power are claims which distinguish between what is known broadly as “power-over” and a more subtle form of influence, “power-to.” This article explores the history of the NPT, showing how the nuclear weapon states have shaped and limited this institution by practices which fall within the relational emphasis of “power-over.” Recently, however, non-nuclear states have adopted a “power-to” approach. Frustrated by their inability to bring about substantive change within the limits of the NPT, these states have realized and applied their agency and collective “power-to” in order to create an alternative approach to the problem of nuclear weapons in the context of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
036419
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
New York, Department For Disarmament Affairs, 1987.
|
| Description |
v.11 (xx, 492p.)
|
| Standard Number |
9211421292
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 028834 | 327.17405/UNI 028834 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
093564
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2010.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
When does a state become a "nuclear weapon state"? How we choose to answer this question has significant implications for proliferation assessment, analysis, and policy. Traditionally, the standard demarcation line has been a state's first nuclear test, but in recent years analysts have increasingly focused instead on the accumulation of a significant quantity (SQ) of fissile material. The article argues that although the test/no-test indicator clearly has problems, its replacement by the SQ/no-SQ indicator would be highly counterproductive. The article instead proposes supplementing the traditional test/no-test indicator with a theory-driven approach that focuses on the incentives and disincentives to test.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|