Disarmament Term Paper

POLI 318

Prof. Schofield

Hypothesis Testing Assignment

Edouard Barbeau ID# 40099930

1. Description of Disarmament:This concept refers to the wilful or imposed act of reducing, limiting, or abolishing a country’s weapon capabilities or structures. Since its introduction, disarmament has led to situations where a country’s military or specific types of weapons are abolished or limited. Presently, disarmament has been spearheaded and regulated by international agreements between nations to limit or abolish specific types of weaponry. The commonly targeted type of weaponry is the weapons of mass destruction (WMD). In the past, disarmament was forcefully imposed on nations that had been defeated in war. For example, the Versailles Treaty in 1919 dictated that Germany and its allies be disarmed after their defeat in the First World War. Under the support of some governments, other utopian thinkers propose a complete abolition of all armaments in pursuit of complete peace.
2. Primary Hypothesis: Two powerful nations will likely engage in a bilateral agreement to reduce their armaments or abolish specific types of weaponry they believe is very destructive so as to reduce chances of engaging in warfare that might lead to massive loss of lives. Indicators; include the massive and powerful weaponry owned by each country. For instance, two countries with extensive nuclear weapons and strong military will likely want to avoid military confrontations by agreeing to abolish or reduce their weaponries. The existence of such weapons might be known through government communication, and the willingness of each country to use them against the other is also clearly communicated. Therefore, this will call for an agreement moderated by international organizations such as the United Nations for the two countries to reduce or abolish the specific weaponry.
3. Competing Hypothesis: When two powerful nations believe that going to war with one another will lead to massive destruction and losses within and outside their borders, irrespective of who wins the war, there is a higher likelihood for these countries to enter an agreement. The agreement will basically be based on avoiding conflict; however, to establish trust between the two nations calls for weaponry limitation will be initiated. Avoiding war and reducing military capacity are often initiated by a non-participating organ or government that also has other capabilities that might hurt the two nations if they fail to comply. Economic sanctions on the two countries might be initiated by other countries that feel threatened by a possible conflict between the two weapons-endowed nations.
4. Literature Review: Numerous studies approach the theoretical debate on disarmament as an integral factor in international security studies. For instance, Alolaimy (2017), in his study, “Disarmament: evolution or revolution,” acknowledges that realism, liberalism, and constructivism have been the driving force encouraging disarmament when weapons of mass destruction are involved. However, the author has failed to include the participating nations’ voices in implementing disarmament. According to the author, the outside voice composed of other nations is critical in formulating approaches to disarmament. While this contains some elements of truth, it fails to acknowledge the massive input the conflicting nations initiate in assessing the costs of war when weapons of mass destruction are involved.

Past definitions and implementation of disarmament have further hurt the true intention of this noble practice, as reported by Foradori, Giacomello, and Pascolini (2018) in the book “Arms control and disarmament: 50 years of experience in nuclear education.” In this book, a historical understanding of disarmament has positioned it as a strategic move by powerful nations to curb the military growth of other nations deemed to be smaller and less influential. Numerous theories proposed outside the conventional understanding of disarmament continue to brand this strategy as a power-amassing and maintenance approach needed to portray other nations as superpowers. Unfortunately, this approach proposed by Foradori, Giacomello, and Pascolini (2018) fails to adopt a realist view in their ideology. Despite having a definition that logically requires the conflicting parties to be two, disarmament has been a multilateral concept for the longest time. This view is clearly supported by Borrie and Randin (2006), who assert that without a multilateral approach and support, the concept of disarmament would not have worked. Therefore, Foradori, Giacomello, and Pascolini’s failure to adopt a realist view where many nations and independent international bodies engage in extensive negotiations to ensure nations agree to engage in disarmament.

The multilateral approach to disarmament acknowledges that the impacts of war in the presently connected world will not affect one nation. Therefore, two warring nations will induce numerous other negative impacts outside their borders. As such, Willner-Giwerc (2018) sheds light on the various interests tabled during disarmament negotiations. Apart from the interests of the participating nations, other countries also engage in aggressive negotiations to ensure the almost-warring nations down their weapons and initiate disarmament. The author has also introduced a new insight on how disarmament negotiation between two nations might lead to more other nations being included in the disarmament pact. Using the example of nations, A, B, C, D, the authors claim that when A and B are in a negotiation to initiate disarmament, C and D, who were acting as independent witnesses or monitors, may also be required to initiate disarmament for the original objectives to be ratified. This new insight is evidently workable in the present world, where numerous sovereignties are endowed in extensive and powerful weaponry. A multilateral approach to disarmament is thus the only possible approach that can lead to disarmament.

5. The Empirical Test: An extensive U.S.- North Korean nuclear and missile diplomacy has taken place for years. The U.S and the international community are constantly seeking ways to deter the nuclear and missile development in North Korea. North Korean agreement to initiate disarmament of its nuclear firepower has happened severally after the country’s top leadership retracted from its promise. However, one of the milestone agreements to initiate disarmament involved six nations, namely; Japan, China, North Korea, Russia, and the United States, in 2005 when the country decided to disassemble its nuclear firepower. This breakthrough negotiation followed by other multilateral agreements shows that the alternative hypothesis is applicable since the involvement of other nations meant that North Korea’s failure to initiate disarmament had worried other nations other than the U.S.
6. Bibliography

Alolaimy, Mohamed.  (2017). “Disarmament: evolution or revolution.” World affairs: the journal of international issues 21, no. 1, 32–47. Https://www.jstor.org/stable/48531507.

Borrie, Jules. & Randin, Michael. 2006. Thinking outside the box in multilateral disarmament and arms control negotiations, Geneva, Switzerland: UNIDIR.

Foradori Paolo, Giampiero Giacomello, and Pascolini Alessandro 2018 Arms control and disarmament: 50 years of experience in nuclear education. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=1623536.

Willner-Giwerc, Max. 2018. “Game theory and disarmament: Thinking beyond the table.” E-International relations. https://www.e-ir.info/2018/12/18/game-theory-and-disarmament-thinking-beyond-the-table/