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, and is leading a study on nuclear signaling in the 21^st century.

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 Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center

Commentary
Diwan
Egypt’s Discrete Role in the Ceasefire with Iran
Cairo’s efforts send a message to the United States and the region that it still has a place at the diplomatic table.
Angie Omar
Commentary
Diwan
Realism and the Lebanon-Israel Talks
Beirut’s desire to break free from Iranian hegemony may push it into a situation where it has to accept Israel’s hegemony.
Michael Young
Commentary
Diwan
The United States and Iran Have Agreed to a Two-Week Ceasefire
Spot analysis from Carnegie scholars on events relating to the Middle East and North Africa.
Michael Young
Commentary
Diwan
Iran Rewrites Its War Strategy
In an interview, Hamidreza Azizi discusses how Tehran has adapted in real time to the conflict with the United States and Israel.
Michael Young
Commentary
Diwan
Trump’s Plan for Gaza Is Not Irrelevant. It’s Worse.
The simple conclusion is that the scheme will bring neither peace nor prosperity, but will institutionalize devastation.
Nathan J. Brown

Reexamining Disarmament Obligations