| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
164698
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Illicit procurement networks often target industry in developed economies to acquire materials and components of use in WMD and military programs. These procurement networks are ultimately directed by elements of the proliferating state and utilize state resources to undertake their activities: diplomats and missions, state intelligence networks, and state-connected logistical assets. These state assets have also been utilized to facilitate the export of WMD and military technologies in breach of sanctions. While used in most historic proliferation cases, their role has seen limited consideration in the scholarly literature. This article seeks to systematically contextualize state resources in proliferation networks, arguing that their use lies between state criminality and routine activity in support of national security. Considering the competitive advantages of these assets compared to similar resources available in the private sector, the article argues that nonproliferation efforts have caused states to change how they use these resources through an ongoing process of competitive adaptation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
168438
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In 2004, the United Nations Security Council adopted resolution 1540, which acknowledged the non-state acquisition of weapons of mass destruction as a security threat and called on member states to implement “appropriate effective” domestic trade controls. The United States, however, has both promoted the multilateral implementation of strategic trade controls but has also increasingly resorted to extraterritorial enforcement of its counterproliferation rules. How can a multilateral, norms-based international regime like 1540 contend with extraterritorial enforcement based on national interests? We argue that increased U.S. extraterritorial counterproliferation policies are a consequence of the inconsistent implementation of resolution 1540, adaptive and resilient proliferation networks, and a history of expanding legal interpretations of jurisdiction. We find that while U.S. extraterritorial enforcement can effectively disrupt networks hiding in overseas jurisdictions, doing so creates disincentives for states to implement 1540 obligations and undermines broader nonproliferation objectives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
076721
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2006.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article reconsiders the conventional wisdom that the prospects for nuclear proliferation in Southeast Asia are too small to mention. After outlining the assumptions that underpin the conventional wisdom, it identifies recent regional and global trends that tend to weaken those assumptions and develops two proliferation scenarios, one centered on Burma and the other on Indonesia. It finds that the prospects for nuclear proliferation in Southeast Asia before 2016 remain nearly as remote as the conventional wisdom suggests, yet current trends suggest that the foundation for future proliferation may be laid during the coming decade. The scenarios suggest that attention ought to be focused not just on countries that are likely to proliferate, but on ways that Southeast Asian individuals might be drawn into regional and global proliferation networks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|