Commentary
In Donald Trump’s second term in office, the transatlantic relationship that helped define the postwar European project and global order appears broken. Is it time for Brussels to chart its own path?
Nathalie Tocci, Jan Techau
{
"authors": [
"George Perkovich"
],
"type": "other",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [
"Renovating the Nuclear Order"
],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "NPP",
"programs": [
"Nuclear Policy"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [],
"topics": [
"Nuclear Policy",
"Arms Control"
]
}
Source: Getty
Other
Accountability After Nuclear War: Why Not Plan Ahead?
States and experts preoccupied with winning (or at least not losing) wars that could go nuclear have largely ignored questions of post facto accountability.
Published on Nov 17, 2020
Source: Journal of Peace and Nuclear Disarmament
If nuclear war occurs, non-belligerents want the conductors to take responsibility for providing assistance to deal with harm imposed on them. This harm could take the form of radioactive fallout, climatic change that causes global food shortages and refugee crises. But states and experts preoccupied with winning (or at least not losing) wars that could go nuclear have largely ignored questions of post facto accountability. Nuclear-armed states claim to be responsible, defensive actors; therefore, they should not object if others demand processes to adjudicate the conduct of nuclear war after the fact and provide reparations and remedies to victims in non-belligerent nations. Indeed, international efforts to establish such accountability could strengthen deterrence against aggression and use of nuclear weapons.
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
- Can Europe Trust the United States Again?
- Unpacking Europe’s Deterrence DilemmasCommentary
The debate on the future of European deterrence has intensified, as NATO allies seek to balance three key aims. Going forward, they will need to cooperate more deeply to craft a coherent strategy for confronting new threats.
Sophia Besch, Jamie Kwong
- The Small Window for an EU-U.S. Diplomatic Push on IranCommentary
To turn U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear program into a long-term resolution, Washington should seize the moment and cooperate with France, Germany, and the UK on diplomatic talks.
Rym Momtaz
- Taking the Pulse: Can Europeans Build Their Independent Extended Nuclear Deterrent?Commentary
Confronted with a U.S. disengagement and the Russian threat, Europeans are reconsidering their stance on nuclear deterrence. Given the capabilities of the French and British arsenals, can Europe develop an independent nuclear deterrent?
Rym Momtaz
- EU-Iran: Time to Revisit Assumptions and StrategizeCommentary
For too long, the EU focused on Iran’s nuclear program while mostly ignoring its malign regional activities and missile program. As the consequences of both hit closer to home, the union must pursue a new strategy focused on containing Iran’s regime, supporting Iranian civil society, and engaging with Gulf states.
Cornelius Adebahr
