Reexamining Disarmament Obligations

{
  "authors": [
    "George Perkovich"
  ],
  "type": "legacyinthemedia",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [
    "U.S. Nuclear Policy"
  ],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "NPP",
  "programs": [
    "Nuclear Policy"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "North America",
    "United States"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Nuclear Policy",
    "Nuclear Energy"
  ]
}

In The Media

Reexamining Disarmament Obligations

Disarmament obligations promise to be an important topic at the 2009 Carnegie International Nonproliferation Conference, says George Perkovich. Critics question the role of disarmament in discouraging would-be proliferators and disarmament negotiations need the imprimatur of high-level officials from both weapons and non-weapons states to move past this impasse.

By George Perkovich

Published on Apr 1, 2009

Source: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Reexamining Disarmament ObligationsNext week, government officials and experts from around the world will gather in Washington, D.C., for the 2009 Carnegie International Nonproliferation Conference. The meeting will focus on the health of the global nonproliferation regime and current nuclear disarmament efforts. A central, ongoing debate within these policy arenas, and one that is likely to feature prominently in the conference's proceedings, is the nature of nuclear-armed states' obligation to eliminate their nuclear arsenals.

Late last year, my colleague at the Carnegie Endowment of International Peace, James M. Acton, and I cowrote an Adelphi Paper, Abolishing Nuclear Weapons, which outlined the challenges to abolishing nuclear weapons. In the months since its publication, we solicited responses from experts and officials around the world. These responses are freely available in Abolishing Nuclear Weapons: A Debate, which contains the original Adelphi Paper and 17 critiques by authors from 13 countries. Several of these responses suggested new ways of overcoming current debates about the role nuclear weapons states play in disarmament discussions.

Read the full article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

About the Author

George Perkovich

Japan Chair for a World Without Nuclear Weapons, Senior Fellow

George Perkovich is the Japan Chair for a World Without Nuclear Weapons and a senior fellow in the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Nuclear Policy Program. He works primarily on nuclear deterrence, nonproliferation, and disarmament issues.

Recent Work

Paper
How to Assess Nuclear ‘Threats’ in the Twenty-First Century
- George Perkovich
Commentary
“A House of Dynamite” Shows Why No Leader Should Have a Nuclear Trigger
- George Perkovich

Nuclear Policy Nuclear Energy North America United States

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Europe

Commentary
Strategic Europe
The EU’s Middle-Power Puzzle
While the EU and European governments are embracing the much-lauded middle-power moment, this entails three difficult conundrums.
Richard Youngs
Book
The Scramble for Europe. Russia, China, and Turkey Challenging Regional Order
Europe is facing rising populism internally as well as external pressures from Russia, China, Turkey, and the United States.
Dimitar Bechev
Article
Separable, not Separate: Governing Europe’s Collective Defense
European NATO countries are wrestling with the possibility of U.S. disengagement from the alliance. With the continent’s security increasingly uncertain, governments must restore the credibility of their collective defense.
Hans-Dieter Lucas, Adam Thomson, Pierre Vimont
Commentary
The Denmark-Greenland-U.S. Agreement Needs to Stand the Test of Time
The new U.S.–Denmark–Greenland agreement will help Washington exert political, economic, and financial dominance under the guise of security. Yet, it acknowledged Copenhagen’s and Nuuk’s sovereignty on the island.
Marc Pierini
Commentary
Strategic Europe
The Speech Ursula von der Leyen Can’t Deliver
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is about to give her annual address on the state of the EU. Here’s what she won’t—but should—say.
Rym Momtaz

Reexamining Disarmament Obligations

More Work from Carnegie Europe

Commentary

Strategic Europe

The EU’s Middle-Power Puzzle

While the EU and European governments are embracing the much-lauded middle-power moment, this entails three difficult conundrums.

Richard Youngs

Book

The Scramble for Europe. Russia, China, and Turkey Challenging Regional Order

Europe is facing rising populism internally as well as external pressures from Russia, China, Turkey, and the United States.

Dimitar Bechev

Article

Separable, not Separate: Governing Europe’s Collective Defense

European NATO countries are wrestling with the possibility of U.S. disengagement from the alliance. With the continent’s security increasingly uncertain, governments must restore the credibility of their collective defense.

Hans-Dieter Lucas, Adam Thomson, Pierre Vimont

Greenland United States Denmark Agreement Nuuk

Commentary

The Denmark-Greenland-U.S. Agreement Needs to Stand the Test of Time

The new U.S.–Denmark–Greenland agreement will help Washington exert political, economic, and financial dominance under the guise of security. Yet, it acknowledged Copenhagen’s and Nuuk’s sovereignty on the island.

Marc Pierini

Commentary

Strategic Europe

The Speech Ursula von der Leyen Can’t Deliver

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is about to give her annual address on the state of the EU. Here’s what she won’t—but should—say.

Rym Momtaz