Thanks for the post. I’m very willing to read the whole sequel. I agree the TPNW probably has no positive “formal effect” for non-proliferation, and I am anxious to read about possible informal effects – mainly “shaming” nuclear powers.
I wonder if those treaties are mostly a matter of self-binding: these countries are unlikely to produce nuclear weapons in the next years, but they can’t trust their own future governments to remain this way; so, by ratifying the TPNW, they assure each other of this commitment.
Maybe I’m biased by Brazil’s example: during the Military Dictatorship, the country refused to ratify the NPT, pursued its own nuclear program, got into an arms race with Argentina, and (likely) exported uranium to the Iraq – despite lacking political approval (from the people and from the legislation) for that. Since then, democratic governments seem to have ratified any nuclear weapons convention they can, just to signal Brazil will never risk contributing to proliferation again.
Another point: isn’t TPNW an attempt to change scholar’s interpretations concerning the international jus cogens on the use / threat of nuclear weapons? I don’t think international legal opinions are a concern for potential supporters of nuclear weapons, though.
Thanks for the post. I’m very willing to read the whole sequel. I agree the TPNW probably has no positive “formal effect” for non-proliferation, and I am anxious to read about possible informal effects – mainly “shaming” nuclear powers.
I wonder if those treaties are mostly a matter of self-binding: these countries are unlikely to produce nuclear weapons in the next years, but they can’t trust their own future governments to remain this way; so, by ratifying the TPNW, they assure each other of this commitment.
Maybe I’m biased by Brazil’s example: during the Military Dictatorship, the country refused to ratify the NPT, pursued its own nuclear program, got into an arms race with Argentina, and (likely) exported uranium to the Iraq – despite lacking political approval (from the people and from the legislation) for that. Since then, democratic governments seem to have ratified any nuclear weapons convention they can, just to signal Brazil will never risk contributing to proliferation again.
Another point: isn’t TPNW an attempt to change scholar’s interpretations concerning the international jus cogens on the use / threat of nuclear weapons? I don’t think international legal opinions are a concern for potential supporters of nuclear weapons, though.