CHAPTER NO.

APPROACHES TO PEACE
1.0 DIPLOMACY

Basic Concept of Diplomacy

Diplomacy is the art and practice of conducting negotiations between representatives of groups
or states. It usually refers to the conduct of international relations through the intercession of
professional diplomats with regard to issues of peace-making, trade, war, economics, culture,
environment, and human rights.

Diplomacy is the management of international relations by means of negotiations; the method

by which these relations are adjusted and managed by ambassadors and envoys the business
or art of the diplomats” (Harold Nicholson).

Diplomacy is the process of representation and negotiation by which states customarily deal
with one another in times of peace.” Padelford and Lincoln

Diplomacy is a basic means by which a nation seeks to secure the goals of its national interest.
Foreign policy always travels on the shoulders of diplomacy and gets operationalized in other
states.

NATURE OF DIPLOMACY:
(1) Diplomacy is not Immoral:
Diplomacy is neither the art of deceit nor mere lies or propaganda, and nor even something
immoral.

(2) Diplomacy is a means of International Relations:

Diplomacy is a normal means of conducting relations. It consists of techniques and procedures
for conducting relations among nations.

(3) Diplomacy is machinery for action:

In itself diplomacy is recognized as official machinery for the conduct of relations among
nations.

(4) Diplomacy acts through Settled Procedures:

Diplomacy functions through a network of foreign offices, embassies, legations, consulates, and
special missions all over the world. It always works according to definite and settled procedures
and protocol.

(5) Bilateral as well as Multilateral in Form:

Diplomacy is commonly bilateral in character. However as a result of the growing importance of
international conferences, international organisations, regional negotiations, it has now also
developed a plural character. It is concerned with all issues and problems among nations.
(6) Diplomacy handles all types of Matters:
Diplomacy may embrace a multitude of interests from the simplest issues to vital issues to that
of war and peace.

(7) Breakdown of Diplomacy always leads to Crisis:

When diplomacy breaks down, the danger of war, or at least of a major crisis develops.

(8) Diplomacy operates both in times of Peace as well as War:

Some writers hold that diplomacy operates only in times of peace and when war breaks out
diplomacy comes to an end. However, this is not a correct view. Diplomacy continues to operate
even when war breaks out.

(9) Diplomacy works in an environment characterised both by Conflict and Cooperation:

Diplomacy works in a situation involving both cooperation and conflict. A certain degree of
cooperation among nations is essential for the working of diplomacy because in its absence,
diplomatic relations cannot be maintained. Similarly when there is no conflict diplomacy
becomes superfluous because there is no need for negotiations. Thus existence of cooperation
as well as conflict is essential for the working of diplomacy.

(10) Diplomacy always works for securing national interests of the nation it represents:
The purpose of diplomacy is to secure the goals of national interest as defined and specified by
the foreign policy of the nation. Diplomacy always works for the nation it represents.

(11) Diplomacy is backed by National Power. Diplomacy is backed by national power:

A strong diplomacy means a diplomacy backed by a strong national power. Diplomacy uses
persuasion and influence as the means for exercising power in international relations. It cannot
use force and violence. However, it can issue warnings, give ultimatums, promise rewards and
threaten punishment, but beyond this it cannot directly exercise force. “Diplomacy is the
promotion of national interest by peaceful means.”

(12) Test of Success of Diplomacy:

Success in Diplomacy is measured in terms of the amount of success achieved towards the
fulfillment of the goals of national interest in international relations.

All these characteristics highlight the nature of Diplomacy. One can describe Diplomacy as an
instrument of national interest and a tool of foreign policy.

OBJECTIVES OF DIPLOMACY:
Diplomacy seeks to secure two types of primary objectives for the nation it represents.
These are:
(i) Political Objectives, and

(ii) Non-political Objectives.

(1) Political Objectives of Diplomacy:
Diplomacy always works to secure the goals of national interest as defined by the foreign policy.
It always works for increasing the influence of the state over other states. It uses persuasion,
promises of rewards and other such means for this purpose. Through rational negotiations, it
seeks to justify the objectives of the foreign policy of the nation. It seeks to promote friendship
and cooperation with other nations.

(2) Non-political Objectives of Diplomacy:

The interdependence among nations is the most important and valuable fact of international
living. Each nation depends upon others for economic and industrial links and trade. Diplomacy
always seeks to promote the economic, commercial and cultural links of the nation with other
nations. Diplomacy depends upon peaceful means, persuasive methods for promoting the
interests of the nation and this is indeed an important non-political objective of Diplomacy.

MAIN DEVICES OF DIPLOMACY:

There are six main devices of Diplomacy which are given below
1. Persuasion:
Through logical reasoning, Diplomacy seeks to convince others of the justification of the goals
which it is trying to uphold or promote.

2. Rewards:
Diplomacy can offer rewards for securing acceptance of desired view of a particular
international dispute or issue or problem.

3. Promise of Reward and Concessions:

Diplomacy can promise matching rewards and concessions for securing a particular change or
maintaining a particular view in the policies of other nations.

4. Threat of use of Force:

Diplomacy cannot use force or violence in promoting the national interest. However, it can use
threat of use of force—ultimatums, symbolic boycotts, protest walkouts or even threat of war
etc., for securing its objectives.

5. Non-violent Punishment:
By depriving a promised reward or concession, Diplomacy can inflict non-violent punishment on
other nations.

6. Use of Pressure:
By using pressure tactics Diplomacy can force other nations to accept the desired view or policy
or decision or goals that it represents. Besides these, Diplomacy also uses propaganda, cultural
links, exploitation of situations, creation of particular scenes and situations, rigidity or flexibility in
negotiations etc.
FUNCTIONS AND ROLE OF DIPLOMACY:
In performing its tasks and securing its national objectives, Diplomacy has to undertake a
number of functions.

Major Functions:
1. Ceremonial/Symbolic Functions:
The diplomats of a nation are the symbolic representatives of the state and they represent their
state and government in all official ceremonies and functions as well as in non-official, social
and cultural functions held in the place of their postings.

2. Representation:
A diplomat formally represents his country in a foreign state. He is the normal agent of
communication between his home office and that of the state to which he is accredited. His
representation is legal and political. He can vote in the name of his government.

3. Negotiations:
To conduct negotiations with other states is a substantive function of diplomacy. The role of
diplomacy in conducting negotiations has, however, declined in our times because of the
emergence of multilateral diplomacy, personal diplomacy political diplomacy, summit diplomacy
and the direct communication links among the world leaders and top statesmen.

4. Reporting:
Reporting involves the observation of the political, economic, military and social conditions of
the host country and the accurate transmission of the findings of the diplomat to his home
country. The political reporting involves a report about the assessment of the roles of various
political parties in the politics of the host country.

5. Protection of Interests:
Diplomacy is always at work for protecting and promoting the interests of the nation and its
people living abroad. Protection of interests is the “bedrock of the practice of diplomacy.” It
works to secure compatibility out of incompatibility through accommodation, reconciliation and
goodwill.

SECRET DIPLOMACY AND OPEN DIPLOMACY:

1. What is Secret Diplomacy?
The term Secret Diplomacy is used to designate the diplomatic practice of conducting secret
negotiations and making secret pacts, decisions, alliances and treaties. In Secret Diplomacy no
attempt is made to take the people into confidence, and little information about diplomatic
activity is provided to the public. Secrecy is considered vital for the success of diplomacy.

2. What is Open Diplomacy?

Open Diplomacy is the opposite of Secret Diplomacy. In the age of democracy, it is argued that
the people have the right and duty to know and to participate in foreign policy decision-making.
As such, it is considered essential that diplomacy must take into account popular wishes and
public opinion. It is expected to inform the public about the nature and progress of all diplomatic
negotiations as well as about the final agreement or disagreement resulting from such
negotiations.

(1) Arguments in favour of Open Diplomacy or Arguments against Secret Diplomacy:

1. It is the natural right of the people to know everything about the affairs of their government.

2. It is the right of the people to keep the government responsible for its acts.

3. It is the duty of the people to keep Diplomacy under check and prevent it from leading the
nation into an environment of tensions, strains and war.

4. Open Diplomacy is the best way of involving the people in the process of securing national
interests and making them politically conscious.

5. Secret Diplomacy leads to deceit, double dealings, and irresponsibility on the part of
diplomats.

6. There exists no justification for making secret treaties and alliances because every such
instrument has a direct bearing upon the future of the people of the state.

(2) Arguments against Open Diplomacy or Arguments in favour of Secret Diplomacy:

1. Secrecy in the interest of nation is an absolutely necessary condition for the success of
diplomacy.

2. Secret negotiations help the diplomats to be free and frank in expressing their views.

3. Open Diplomacy can be misleading in practice, because the need for securing public
sympathy for an essential state act can make the diplomats practise window- dressing and false
propaganda.

4. General public has neither the ability nor the time to participate constructively in diplomatic
debate that may emerge as a result of public access to all information regarding diplomatic
negotiations.

Decline and Future of Diplomacy:

Decline of Diplomacy:
In this age of science, technology and IT revolution, Diplomacy has suffered a substantial
decline. Its role has suffered a big setback. It no longer performs that spectacular role which it
used to perform in the 19th Century.

Four Factors Responsible for the Decline of Diplomacy:

(1) Speedy means of Communication:
Previously, in the absence of speedy means of communications, the governments of the states
used to be forced to depend upon their diplomats stationed in foreign countries for conducting
negotiations and maintaining relations with one another.

(2) The Deprecation of Diplomacy:

The feeling that diplomacy is a source of secret, underhand, double-dealing and undesirable
power politics has been the second factor responsible for a decline of diplomacy. Many people,
today believe that diplomacy is an ineffective instrument of world peace.

(3) Advent of New Diplomacy:

The emergence of New Diplomacy, more so Parliamentary Diplomacy, Conference Diplomacy,
and Personal Diplomacy, has led to a decline of diplomacy. Love for open democracy and open
negotiations has forced the transformation of Old Diplomacy into New Diplomacy.

(4) The Nature of International System and Role of Diplomacy:

The nature of international relations of cold war period (1945-90) acted as a hindering factor for
diplomacy. The presence of cold war, two super powers, nuclear weapons, end of balance of
power, transformation of war into total war, birth of new states, alliances and counter alliances,
rise of the United Nations and other international agencies etc., all combined to produce a big
change in the nature of post-war international relations.

Diplomacy had to undergo a change under the impact of several big changes in the international
environment and relations among nations. In the process Diplomacy suffered a decline of role.
Its popularity as a means of conflict-resolution registered a fall. This situation prevails even
today.

FUTURE OF DIPLOMACY:
Despite a change in its role and functions, Diplomacy still continues to be a valuable instrument
of international relations. It continues to be an important element of both National Power and
Foreign Policy. A change or decline in its role does not mean that Diplomacy stands rejected as
an instrument of international relations.

Diplomacy in its new form, the new diplomacy, continues to be regarded as one of the most
important means of securing national interest as well as for preserving peace against war. So
long as the need to eliminate, or at least to reduce the chances of war remains, Diplomacy as a
mean for the conduct of relations is bound to be used by all the nations.

With its new dress, Diplomacy can be successfully used as a valuable instrument for the
resolution of conflict and crisis management among nations. Diplomats have been trying to help
the international community to overcome some of its problems and to secure a resolution of
international disputes.

2.0. INTERNATIONAL LAW

INTERNATIONAL LAW AND ITS IMPORTANCE

International law is a collection of agreements that represent the will and consent of nation-
states with respect to the rules that govern their relationships. Treaties are the increasingly
predominant form of international law. International law also can be found in international
custom. As a system of governance, international law lacks the capacity to grow. The
Copenhagen Accord, which is regarded by some as an unmitigated disaster, while some argue
that, although the Accord fails to establish the binding carbon emissions targets that were hoped
for, it at least creates a new multi-polar order that engages the developed nations whose
participation is vital to future progress. Politics and international law seems to have failed to live
up to expectations. There are significant commonalities among the chthonic legal traditions that
typify the world's many tribal societies. People are global citizens and tribal souls. Therefore, the
onus is on the citizens to make up for the failed policies and programs.

International law is an important part of the structure of our international society. It adds that
states accept it as such, and their record in observing it bears comparison with the level of law
observance in many countries. It stresses that international law is a part of the structure for it is
an integral part of it and not an optional extra; and that it is but one part in the overall equation
important, but not to the exclusion of other parts. It explains that the importance of international
law is a function of its effectiveness and its ability to respond to change. Both, at the present
time and for the most part, are adequate, but perhaps only just. It adds that neither can be taken
away for granted. It clarifies that both need attention and development within a framework of
respect for the international rule of law, if a stable international order is to prevail.

SOURCES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

Since there is no world government, there is no world Congress or parliament to make

international law the way domestic legislatures create laws for one country. As such, there can
be significant difficulty in establishing exactly what is international law. Various sources,
however principally treaties between states are considered authoritative statements of
international law. Treaties are the strongest and most binding type because they represent
consensual agreements between the countries who sign them. At the same time, as stated in
the statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), rules of international law can be found in
customary state practice, general principles of law common to many countries, domestic judicial
decisions, and the legal scholarship.

1. Treaties.

Treaties are similar to contracts between countries; promises between States are exchanged,
finalized in writing, and signed. States may debate the interpretation or implementation of a
treaty, but the written provisions of a treaty are binding. Treaties can address any number of
fields, such as trade relations, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, or control of
nuclear weapons, such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

2. Custom.

Customary international law (CIL) is more difficult to ascertain than the provisions of a written
treaty. CIL is created by the actual actions of states (called “state practice”) when they
demonstrate that those states believe that acting otherwise would be illegal. Even if the rule of
CIL is not written down, it still binds states, requiring them to follow it.

3. General Principles of Law.

The third source of international law is based on the theory of “natural law,” which argues that
laws are a reflection of the instinctual belief that some acts are right while other acts are wrong.
“The general principles of law recognized by civilized nations” are certain legal beliefs and
practices that are common to all developed legal systems.

4. Judicial Decisions and Legal Scholarship.

The last two sources of international law are considered “subsidiary means for the determination
of rules of law.” While these sources are not by themselves international law, when coupled with
evidence of international custom or general principles of law, they may help to prove the
existence of a particular rule of international law.

ROLE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW IN PEACE KEEPING

Peacekeeping is a development of the Cold War. It was not envisaged by the UN Charter of
1945, but it has proved vital in securing a minimum level of peace and security in trouble spots
around the world. Although new in its day, the “traditional” type of peacekeeping force first
deployed in Suez in 1956 reflected traditional, or classical, principles of international law in that
it was based on the consent of the host state or states, and even though it appeared to
constitute military intervention, its respect for sovereignty was reflected in the neutrality of such
forces. The trinity of peacekeeping principles of consent, impartiality, and nonuse of aggressive
force very much reflected those fundamental principles of international law of sovereignty,
nonintervention, and nonuse of force.

It is generally considered that the UN Security Council has been galvanised since the end of the
Cold War. However, the existence and development of armed conflicts remain the reality in the
international scene. Is the upsurge in instances of invoking Chapter VII of the UN Charter truly a
sign of the invigoration of the Security Council’s authority or mere evidence of its failure to
prevent the aggravation of armed conflicts? To what extent is the Security Council authorised to
exercise the peacekeeping power in order to take a more flexible approach to conflict
management from an earlier stage of conflict?

The dialectic between consensual peacekeeping and its more belligerent variant was
established as early as the second full peacekeeping force in the Congo in 1960–1964, and it is
currently on the agenda as the United Nations struggles to implement the “responsibility to
protect” agenda through “protection” mandates given to UN forces. Coercive mandates mean
that peacekeepers are increasingly crossing the line to become war fighters, or “combatants” in
the language of international humanitarian law, causing confusion as to the legal status of
peacekeepers, who were traditionally not seen as legitimate targets; indeed, attacks on them
are prohibited.
International law play its role in different dimension for peace keeping. The main aspects of the
role of international relations are the following

1. Foreign relations
2. Global scenario
3. International Law and diplomacy in the contemporary global order
4. Lessons from the past
5. Current challenges
6. International Criminal Court
7. Political adversaries

1. Foreign Relation

Foreign relations are key for the peacemaking in the world. International Law focus on the
foreign relations of the countries. The careful steering of a Regional Convention on Suppression
of Terrorism within the SAARC whose founders had chosen the ‘safe path’ of excluding
contentious political issues, from its purview, for the fear of a possible break up of a fledgling
organization, was one such initiative.

2. Global scenario

International Law was traditionally defined as a body of law to regulate inter-state conduct. This
traditional definition found in the older classical writings, cannot stand as a comprehensive
description of this body of principles, in the light of developments in the last few decades. An
essential condition for the continuing relevance of International Law is that it must keep pace
with evolving conditions of international life, which impact upon the conduct of international
relations in contemporary times.

3. International Law and diplomacy in the contemporary global order

In the contemporary global order, International Law is not merely an academic discipline. It has
far reaching political implications for the international community of states in the real world of
international politics. It would not be incorrect to surmise that International Law making is
essentially a ‘political activity’. While an international lawyer plays a vital role in that process, the
role of the diplomat, also assumes a crucial position, given the underlying political
considerations which are interwoven into that process.

4. Lessons from the past

This statement encapsulates the challenge confronting contemporary multi-lateral diplomacy. It

underlines the need to recognise that the milieu of multilateral negotiations require an
acknowledgement of the existence of a multitude of concerns and interests and the success of
diplomacy will depend on finding that middle ground, that fine balance, which would ensure that
one’s fundamental interests are secured, whilst those of other participants in the multilateral
process are also taken into account and accommodated and are not shut out.
5. Current challenges

Varied concerns have been raised whether, in the aftermath of the ‘golden age’ of multi-lateral
diplomacy of the 1960s and 70s and with end of the Cold War, the developing world has lost its
leverage and diplomatic clout to make an impact on the contemporary International Law making
process. While these are certainly significant factors which have a major impact on the current
political and law-making agenda, it would nevertheless be an over-simplification to conclude
from them, that the major powers have the decisive say in dictating the contemporary
international agenda.

6. International Criminal Court

The on-going debates on these issues, it is said, revolve around ‘two major values protected by
International Law’, namely the Immunity of State Officials from jurisdiction of foreign courts, an
integral aspect of sovereign equality of states and an essential prerequisite to preserve the
stability of international relations, and the other value being the obligation to avoid impunity, by
granting immunity across the board, in situations where grave crimes, described as crimes
‘which shock the conscience of mankind’ are alleged to have been committed by persons
enjoying immunity.

7. Political adversaries

In this complex unfolding scenario, what is the role and function of the international lawyer and
diplomat? I would say it lies in the search for a shared surface, with an understanding of the
rationale and underlying values of the contending norms and principles.

3.0. ARMS CONTROL / DISARMAMENT

Basic Concept

Arms control is a term for international restrictions upon the development, production,
stockpiling, proliferation and usage of small arms, conventional weapons, and weapons of mass
destruction. Disarmament is the reduction of the number of weapons and troops maintained by
a state. Arms control refers to treaties made between potential adversaries that reduce the
likelihood and scope of war, usually imposing limitations on military capability. Arms control is
typically exercised through the use of diplomacy which seeks to impose such limitations upon
consenting participants through international treaties and agreements, although it may also
comprise efforts by a nation or group of nations to enforce limitations upon a non-consenting
country.

One of the major efforts to preserve international peace and security in the twentyfirst century h
as been to control or limitthe number of weapons and the ways in which weapons can be used.
Two different means to achieve this goal have beendisarmament and arms control. Disarmame
nt is the reduction of the number of weapons and troops maintained by a [Link] control refe
rs to treaties made between potential adversaries that reduce the likelihood and scope of war, u
 suallyimposing limitations on military capability. Although disarmament always involves the redu
ction of military forces orweapons, arms control does not. In fact, arms control agreements som
etimes allow for the increase of weapons by one ormore parties to a treaty.

In May 1989, NATO adopted a Comprehensive Concept of Arms Control and Disarmament,
which allowed the Alliance to move forward in the sphere of arms control. It addressed the role
of arms control in East-West relations, the principles of Alliance security and a number of
guiding principles and objectives governing Allied policy in the nuclear, conventional and
chemical fields of arms control.

It clearly set out the interrelationships between arms control and defence policies and
established the overall conceptual framework within which the Alliance sought progress in each
area of its arms control agenda.

NATO and Arms Control

NATO has a long-standing commitment to an active policy in arms control, disarmament and
non-proliferation. The Alliance continues to pursue its security objectives through these policies,
while at the same time ensuring that its collective defence obligations are met and the full range
of its missions fulfilled. The role of NATO is

 NATO seeks its security at the lowest possible level of forces.

 It actively contributes to effective and verifiable arms control, disarmament and non-
proliferation efforts through its policies, activities and its member countries. NATO itself is not
party to any treaty, but it supports and facilitates dialogue among members, partners and other
countries to implement their international obligations fully.
 NATO Allies are parties to the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty, the
Ottawa Convention on mine action, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and other
related treaties and agreements.
 In the field of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), NATO cooperates with the United Nations
(UN), the European Union (EU), other regional organisations and multilateral initiatives to
address proliferation issues.
 Nuclear weapons committed to NATO have been reduced by more than 95 per cent since the
height of the Cold War.
 NATO will remain a nuclear alliance as long as there are nuclear weapons in the world, but will
do so at the lowest possible level and with an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional
forces.
 NATO Allies also assist partner countries in the destruction of surplus stocks of mines, arms
and munitions. In addition, former military personnel receive retraining assistance through
Trust Fund defence reform projects.

4.0 NUCLEAR NON PROLIFERATION REGIME

What is the nuclear nonproliferation regime?

The nuclear nonproliferation regime is a broad international framework of agreements and
organizations aimed at preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and contributing to arms
control and disarmament progress. Fears that the Cold War arms race was spiraling out of
control led to the initial establishment of the regime, intended to promote stability and reduce the
likelihood of nuclear weapons use.

The nuclear nonproliferation regime consists of:

 International treaties
 Multilateral and bilateral agreements
 Voluntary (non-binding) agreements
 International organizations
 Domestic agencies, laws, regulations, and policies of participating countries (necessary
for regime compliance).

The nuclear nonproliferation regime’s components serve to:

 Create legally binding nonproliferation obligations

 Strengthen international norms against the spread of nuclear weapons
 Control access to nuclear weapons-relevant materials and technologies
 Build trust between states by verifying compliance with treaty commitments
 Enforce treaties in instances of non-compliance.

Many of the regime’s components address several nonproliferation goals at once, and mutually
reinforce one another. For example, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
(NPT) requires nuclear materials in non-nuclear weapon states to be placed under IAEA
safeguards. However, neither the NPT nor the IAEA is capable of interdicting illicit nuclear
materials trafficking, so voluntary agreements such as the Proliferation Security Initiative have
come into existence to help address gaps in the regime. The extensive network of treaties,
agreements, and organizations in the nonproliferation regime strengthens nonproliferation
norms, builds trust between states, and forms a web of proliferation prevention.

Why is the nonproliferation regime important?

The humanitarian, economic, and environmental consequences of nuclear war are

unimaginable. While the likelihood of a full-scale nuclear exchange has decreased significantly
since the U.S.-Soviet Cold War, the continued existence of more than 17,300 nuclear warheads
poses ongoing risks of intentional, accidental or unauthorized nuclear weapons use.[i]
Preventing the spread of nuclear weapons, and working toward the reduction and eventual
elimination of existing nuclear arsenals, therefore benefits all members of the international
community.

By the mid-1960s, five countries had developed and tested nuclear weapons. Policymakers and
analysts feared a chain reaction of nuclear proliferation, with President John F. Kennedy
famously observing in 1962: “I see the possibility in the 1970s of the president of the United
States having to face a world in which 15 or 20 or 25 nations may have these weapons.”

Today, only nine countries possess nuclear weapons. From a Cold War height of approximately
64,449 nuclear warheads, the world’s nuclear arsenals have decreased to roughly 17,300
warheads. Worst-case scenarios have been avoided in no small part thanks to the development
of the nuclear nonproliferation regime, whose extensive network of treaties, organizations and
non-binding agreements have aided in the development and implementation of nonproliferation,
arms control, and disarmament measures.

Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, commonly known as the Non-
Proliferation Treaty or NPT, is an international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread
of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of
nuclear energy, and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and
complete disarmament.

The treaty recognizes five states as nuclear-weapon states: the United States, Russia,
the United Kingdom, France, and China (also the five permanent members of the United
Nations Security Council). Four other states are known or believed to possess nuclear
weapons: India, Pakistan and North Korea have openly tested and declared that they possess
nuclear weapons, Israel is deliberately ambiguous regarding its nuclear weapons status.

Nuclear weapons proliferation, whether by state or non-state actors, poses one of the greatest
threats to international security today. Iran's apparent efforts to acquire nuclear weapons, what
amounts to North Korean nuclear blackmail. The problem of nuclear proliferation is global, and
any effective response must also be multilateral. Nine states (China, France, India, Israel, North
Korea, Pakistan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) are known or believed to
have nuclear weapons, and more than thirty others (including Japan, Germany, and South
Korea) have the technological ability to quickly acquire them. Amid volatile energy costs, the
accompanying push to expand nuclear energy, growing concerns about the environmental
impact of fossil fuels, and the continued diffusion of scientific and technical knowledge, access
to dual-use technologies seems destined to grow.

Overall, the existing global nonproliferation regime is a highly developed example of

international law. Yet, despite some notable successes, existing multilateral institutions have
failed to prevent states such as India, Pakistan, and North Korea from "going nuclear," and
seem equally ill-equipped to check Iran as well as potential threats from nonstate terrorist
groups. The current framework must be updated and reinforced if it is to effectively address
today's proliferation threats, let alone pave the way for the "peace and security of a world
without nuclear weapons."