Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/13523260.2022.2029174
H. Dijkstra
Contemporary Security Policy awards the Bernard Brodie Prize annually to the author(s) of an outstanding article published in the journal the previous year. The award is named after Dr. Bernard Brodie (1918-1978), author of The Absolute Weapon (1946), Strategy in the Missile Age (1958), and War and Strategy (1973). Brodie’s ideas remain at the center of security debates to this day. One of the first analysts to cross between official and academic environments, he pioneered the very model of civilian influence that Contemporary Security Policy represents. Contemporary Security Policy is honored to acknowledge the permission of Brodie’s son, Dr. Bruce R. Brodie, to use his father’s name.
{"title":"The 2022 Bernard Brodie prize","authors":"H. Dijkstra","doi":"10.1080/13523260.2022.2029174","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2022.2029174","url":null,"abstract":"Contemporary Security Policy awards the Bernard Brodie Prize annually to the author(s) of an outstanding article published in the journal the previous year. The award is named after Dr. Bernard Brodie (1918-1978), author of The Absolute Weapon (1946), Strategy in the Missile Age (1958), and War and Strategy (1973). Brodie’s ideas remain at the center of security debates to this day. One of the first analysts to cross between official and academic environments, he pioneered the very model of civilian influence that Contemporary Security Policy represents. Contemporary Security Policy is honored to acknowledge the permission of Brodie’s son, Dr. Bruce R. Brodie, to use his father’s name.","PeriodicalId":46729,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Security Policy","volume":"43 1","pages":"3 - 4"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45744141","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/13523260.2022.2037968
Marianne Hanson
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).
{"title":"Power to the have-nots? The NPT and the limits of a treaty hijacked by a “power-over” model","authors":"Marianne Hanson","doi":"10.1080/13523260.2022.2037968","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2022.2037968","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\u0000 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).","PeriodicalId":46729,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Security Policy","volume":"43 1","pages":"80 - 105"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41879600","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/13523260.2022.2037969
M. Rublee, Carmen Wunderlich
ABSTRACT The most inclusive security treaty in the world, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) turned 50 in 2020. Our special issue takes stock of the NPT’s vitality after these five decades. In this introduction, we emphasize the need to distinguish between the treaty instrument and the larger nuclear nonproliferation regime. Next, we consider a recent development that may represent a serious impending shock which could weaken the NPT: dramatic changes in the treaty’s legal and normative landscape. Then, we assess vitality of the NPT in light of current concerns, arguing that norm contestation can be healthy for international regimes and calls for the death of the NPT are premature. Finally, we review the contributions of our special issue authors, highlighting the significant differences among them, and embedding them in ongoing research on the NPT.
{"title":"The vitality of the NPT after 50","authors":"M. Rublee, Carmen Wunderlich","doi":"10.1080/13523260.2022.2037969","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2022.2037969","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\u0000 The most inclusive security treaty in the world, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) turned 50 in 2020. Our special issue takes stock of the NPT’s vitality after these five decades. In this introduction, we emphasize the need to distinguish between the treaty instrument and the larger nuclear nonproliferation regime. Next, we consider a recent development that may represent a serious impending shock which could weaken the NPT: dramatic changes in the treaty’s legal and normative landscape. Then, we assess vitality of the NPT in light of current concerns, arguing that norm contestation can be healthy for international regimes and calls for the death of the NPT are premature. Finally, we review the contributions of our special issue authors, highlighting the significant differences among them, and embedding them in ongoing research on the NPT.","PeriodicalId":46729,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Security Policy","volume":"43 1","pages":"5 - 23"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48942589","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.1080/13523260.2021.2020963
H. Dijkstra
{"title":"Changes to the editorial team and board","authors":"H. Dijkstra","doi":"10.1080/13523260.2021.2020963","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2021.2020963","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46729,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Security Policy","volume":"43 1","pages":"1 - 2"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45762869","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.1080/13523260.2022.2147334
Fanny Badache, Sara Hellmüller, Bilal Salaymeh
ABSTRACT This article examines how major powers conceive the role of the United Nations (UN) in peacebuilding. We conceptualize the UN’s role along the distinction between conflict management and conflict resolution and distinguish between the types of tasks and the approach the UN can adopt. We map states’ conceptions of the UN’s role in peacebuilding by coding peace-related speeches at the UN Security Council (1991–2020) delivered by China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States as well as Brazil, South Africa, and Turkey as rising regional powers. Our findings show that states’ conceptions differ regarding the type of tasks the UN should do. However, the main fault line between the countries lie in the approach the UN should adopt to conduct peacebuilding tasks. We conclude that major powers see a role for the UN beyond mere conflict management as long as it is done with respect for national sovereignty.
{"title":"Conflict management or conflict resolution: how do major powers conceive the role of the United Nations in peacebuilding?","authors":"Fanny Badache, Sara Hellmüller, Bilal Salaymeh","doi":"10.1080/13523260.2022.2147334","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2022.2147334","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\u0000 This article examines how major powers conceive the role of the United Nations (UN) in peacebuilding. We conceptualize the UN’s role along the distinction between conflict management and conflict resolution and distinguish between the types of tasks and the approach the UN can adopt. We map states’ conceptions of the UN’s role in peacebuilding by coding peace-related speeches at the UN Security Council (1991–2020) delivered by China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States as well as Brazil, South Africa, and Turkey as rising regional powers. Our findings show that states’ conceptions differ regarding the type of tasks the UN should do. However, the main fault line between the countries lie in the approach the UN should adopt to conduct peacebuilding tasks. We conclude that major powers see a role for the UN beyond mere conflict management as long as it is done with respect for national sovereignty.","PeriodicalId":46729,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Security Policy","volume":"43 4","pages":"547-571"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/87/de/FCSP_43_2147334.PMC9721403.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10370524","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-12-02DOI: 10.1080/13523260.2021.2009695
Joelien Pretorius, Tom Sauer
ABSTRACT Treaties can be denounced and withdrawn from unilaterally and collectively. We ask when it would be legitimate to abandon the NPT, a treaty that 50 years ago committed states to nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, but still has not delivered on the latter. The end of the NPT is a taboo subject in the arms control community that sees it as the cornerstone of the nuclear order. We draw on literature on the legitimacy of and exit from international institutions. We especially explore the political substance of the discontent that the non-nuclear weapons states have expressed in and outside the NPT forum. Exiting the NPT can legitimately be used as a political tool to challenge the current status quo where five states claim a right to possess nuclear weapons based on the NPT, and to achieve a nuclear order where nuclear weapons are illegal for all.
{"title":"When is it legitimate to abandon the NPT? Withdrawal as a political tool to move nuclear disarmament forward","authors":"Joelien Pretorius, Tom Sauer","doi":"10.1080/13523260.2021.2009695","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2021.2009695","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Treaties can be denounced and withdrawn from unilaterally and collectively. We ask when it would be legitimate to abandon the NPT, a treaty that 50 years ago committed states to nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, but still has not delivered on the latter. The end of the NPT is a taboo subject in the arms control community that sees it as the cornerstone of the nuclear order. We draw on literature on the legitimacy of and exit from international institutions. We especially explore the political substance of the discontent that the non-nuclear weapons states have expressed in and outside the NPT forum. Exiting the NPT can legitimately be used as a political tool to challenge the current status quo where five states claim a right to possess nuclear weapons based on the NPT, and to achieve a nuclear order where nuclear weapons are illegal for all.","PeriodicalId":46729,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Security Policy","volume":"43 1","pages":"161 - 185"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9,"publicationDate":"2021-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42538496","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-07DOI: 10.1080/13523260.2021.1998294
R. Gibbons, Stephen Herzog
ABSTRACT The regime built around the 1970 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) has helped curtail the spread of nuclear arms for fifty years. In hindsight, it is remarkable only nine states possess the world’s most powerful weapon. The NPT achieved much success during Cold War bipolarity and U.S. unipolarity in its aftermath. But today, China’s rise and Russia’s resurgence have ushered in a new era of emerging multipolarity. Can the treaty withstand the potential challenges of this dynamic environment? There is a real risk that multipolarity may shake the scaffolding of the nonproliferation regime, presenting a significant test to the NPT’s durability. This article identifies four essential elements of the nonproliferation regime: widespread membership, adaptability, enforcement, and fairness. History suggests bipolarity and unipolarity in the international system largely sustained and promoted these NPT features. When international regimes lack such elements, it sharply curtails their long-term efficacy.
{"title":"Durable institution under fire? The NPT confronts emerging multipolarity","authors":"R. Gibbons, Stephen Herzog","doi":"10.1080/13523260.2021.1998294","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2021.1998294","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The regime built around the 1970 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) has helped curtail the spread of nuclear arms for fifty years. In hindsight, it is remarkable only nine states possess the world’s most powerful weapon. The NPT achieved much success during Cold War bipolarity and U.S. unipolarity in its aftermath. But today, China’s rise and Russia’s resurgence have ushered in a new era of emerging multipolarity. Can the treaty withstand the potential challenges of this dynamic environment? There is a real risk that multipolarity may shake the scaffolding of the nonproliferation regime, presenting a significant test to the NPT’s durability. This article identifies four essential elements of the nonproliferation regime: widespread membership, adaptability, enforcement, and fairness. History suggests bipolarity and unipolarity in the international system largely sustained and promoted these NPT features. When international regimes lack such elements, it sharply curtails their long-term efficacy.","PeriodicalId":46729,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Security Policy","volume":"43 1","pages":"50 - 79"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9,"publicationDate":"2021-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47783618","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-03DOI: 10.1080/13523260.2021.1994692
Ecaterina Locoman, M. Papa
ABSTRACT Russia led a key Cold War alliance and is now at the forefront of debates about major power realignments. Yet Russia’s own conceptualization of alliances in the post-Soviet era has received scant attention. How do Russian policymakers and academics view Russia’s post-Cold War alliances: Are they obsolete, or are they still used for cultivating strategic relationships? We examine the Russian conceptualization of alliances through a systematic study of Russian policy documents and academic debates between 1991 and 2019. We find that traditional alliances are considered ineffective and defense commitments have declined. However, we challenge claims that alliances are obsolete and that alignments/multivectorism have replaced them. Russian regional alliances are cultivated for new purposes and coexist with various other institutional forms. We conceptually map Russia’s close relationships and argue that alliance scholarship needs to move away from a single entity focus toward conceptualizations based on institutional choices.
{"title":"Transformation of alliances: Mapping Russia’s close relationships in the era of multivectorism","authors":"Ecaterina Locoman, M. Papa","doi":"10.1080/13523260.2021.1994692","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2021.1994692","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Russia led a key Cold War alliance and is now at the forefront of debates about major power realignments. Yet Russia’s own conceptualization of alliances in the post-Soviet era has received scant attention. How do Russian policymakers and academics view Russia’s post-Cold War alliances: Are they obsolete, or are they still used for cultivating strategic relationships? We examine the Russian conceptualization of alliances through a systematic study of Russian policy documents and academic debates between 1991 and 2019. We find that traditional alliances are considered ineffective and defense commitments have declined. However, we challenge claims that alliances are obsolete and that alignments/multivectorism have replaced them. Russian regional alliances are cultivated for new purposes and coexist with various other institutional forms. We conceptually map Russia’s close relationships and argue that alliance scholarship needs to move away from a single entity focus toward conceptualizations based on institutional choices.","PeriodicalId":46729,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Security Policy","volume":"43 1","pages":"274 - 307"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9,"publicationDate":"2021-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48883899","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-08DOI: 10.1080/13523260.2021.1983699
O. Noda
ABSTRACT I argue that the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) not only fails to address non-quantitative forms of nuclear proliferation, but also acts as a proliferator of the symbolic values of nuclear weapons. Drawing from Semiotics scholarship, I identify two symbolic roles played by the NPT: as a symbol in itself and as a symbolic proliferator. To support my argument, I employ document and critical discourse analyses, examining the text of the treaty as well as statements from selected nuclear weapon states (NWS) and non-nuclear-weapon states (NNWS) at the 2015 NPT Review Conference (RevCon). This article is structured in two sections: Firstly, I put forward an analytical framework focused on symbolism, exploring the symbolic role of nuclear weapons. Secondly, I turn my attention to the NPT, examining its role and success in the past 50 years employing the symbolic analytical framework.
{"title":"A wolf in sheep’s clothing? The NPT and symbolic proliferation","authors":"O. Noda","doi":"10.1080/13523260.2021.1983699","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2021.1983699","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT I argue that the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) not only fails to address non-quantitative forms of nuclear proliferation, but also acts as a proliferator of the symbolic values of nuclear weapons. Drawing from Semiotics scholarship, I identify two symbolic roles played by the NPT: as a symbol in itself and as a symbolic proliferator. To support my argument, I employ document and critical discourse analyses, examining the text of the treaty as well as statements from selected nuclear weapon states (NWS) and non-nuclear-weapon states (NNWS) at the 2015 NPT Review Conference (RevCon). This article is structured in two sections: Firstly, I put forward an analytical framework focused on symbolism, exploring the symbolic role of nuclear weapons. Secondly, I turn my attention to the NPT, examining its role and success in the past 50 years employing the symbolic analytical framework.","PeriodicalId":46729,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Security Policy","volume":"43 1","pages":"134 - 160"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9,"publicationDate":"2021-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"59721052","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-10-02DOI: 10.1080/13523260.2021.1994238
Ofek Riemer
ABSTRACT Why do states deliberately disclose hard-earned intelligence? For political and operational reasons, Official Public Intelligence Disclosure (OPID) is often considered counterintuitive and ill-advised. However, as this practice proliferates in international affairs in recent years, extant scholarship emphasizes domestic political incentives for its employment. Drawing on interviews with policy, defense, and media figures in Israel, this article generates alternative perspectives. First, in keeping with the dictates of contemporary information and media environment, states engage in OPID as a performative act designed to enhance diplomacy and shape international agenda. Second, in the age of limited wars, instead of being amassed purely for large-scale escalation, selective disclosure of intelligence can be weaponized against adversaries whose operations and very survival depend on secrecy, so as to shape their behavior below the threshold of war. The article advances our understanding of the innovative ways in which intelligence can be strategically employed in the information age.
{"title":"Politics is not everything: New perspectives on the public disclosure of intelligence by states","authors":"Ofek Riemer","doi":"10.1080/13523260.2021.1994238","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2021.1994238","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Why do states deliberately disclose hard-earned intelligence? For political and operational reasons, Official Public Intelligence Disclosure (OPID) is often considered counterintuitive and ill-advised. However, as this practice proliferates in international affairs in recent years, extant scholarship emphasizes domestic political incentives for its employment. Drawing on interviews with policy, defense, and media figures in Israel, this article generates alternative perspectives. First, in keeping with the dictates of contemporary information and media environment, states engage in OPID as a performative act designed to enhance diplomacy and shape international agenda. Second, in the age of limited wars, instead of being amassed purely for large-scale escalation, selective disclosure of intelligence can be weaponized against adversaries whose operations and very survival depend on secrecy, so as to shape their behavior below the threshold of war. The article advances our understanding of the innovative ways in which intelligence can be strategically employed in the information age.","PeriodicalId":46729,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Security Policy","volume":"459 1","pages":"554 - 583"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41278644","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：