Not lost in contestation: How norm entrepreneurs frame norm development in the nuclear nonproliferation regime

Reference list

• Becker, U., Müller, H., & Wisotzki, S. (2008). Democracy and arms control – Destiny or ambiguity? Security Studies, 17, 810–854. doi:10.1080/09636410802507941
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Björkdahl, A. (2002). From idea to norm: Promoting conflict prevention. Lund: Department of Political Science, Lund University.
   Google Scholar
• Bolton, J. (2007). Surrender is not an option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad. New York, NY: Threshold.
   Google Scholar
• Bowen, W. Q., Cottee, M., & Hobbs, C. (2012). Multilateral cooperation and the prevention of nuclear terrorism: Pragmatism over idealism. International Affairs, 88, 349–368. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2346.2012.01075.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burroughs, J. (2007). The role of the UN Security Council. In M. Spies & J. Burroughs (Eds.), Nuclear Disorder or Cooperative Security? U.S. Weapons of Terror, the Global Proliferation Crisis, and Paths to Peace; an assessment of the final report of the WMD Commission and its implications for US policy (pp. 35–43). New York, NY: Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy.
   Google Scholar
• Bush, G. W. (2004). Remarks on Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation. Remarks at the National Defense University, Washington, DC. Retrieved from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PPP-2004-book1/pdf/PPP-2004-book1-doc-pg200.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Chari, P. R. (2009). Introduction: The Indo-US nuclear deal. In P. R. Chari (Ed.), Indo-US nuclear deal. Seeking synergy in bilateralism (pp. 1–17). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• China. (2013, April 25). Statement by the Chinese Delegation on Nuclear Disarmament at the Second Session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2015 Review Conference of the Parties to the NPT, Geneva. Retrieved from http://unrcpd.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/China1.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Deitelhoff, N., & Zimmermann, L. (2013). Things we lost in the fire: How different types of contestation affect the validity of international norms (Working Paper 18). Frankfurt: Peace Research Institute Frankfurt.
   Google Scholar
• Dhanapala, J. (2005). Multilateral diplomacy and the NPT: An insider’s account. Geneva: United Nations, UNIDIR.
   Google Scholar
• Dunne, T. (2008). Good citizen Europe. International Affairs, 84, 13–28. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2346.2008.00686.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fahmy, N. (2006). An assessment of International Nuclear Nonproliferation efforts after 60 years. Nonproliferation Review, 13, 81–87. doi:10.1080/10736700600861426
   Google Scholar
• Fey, M., Hellmann, A., Klinke, F., Plümmer, F., & Rauch, C. (2013). Established and rising great powers: The United States, Russia, China, and India. In H. Müller & C. Wunderlich (Eds.), Norm dynamics in multilateral arms control: Interests, conflicts, and justice (pp. 163–206). Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.
   Google Scholar
• Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization, 47, 565–597. doi:10.1162/002081898550789 doi: 10.1017/S0020818300028101
   Google Scholar
• Florini, A. (1996). The evolution of international norms. International Studies Quarterly, 40, 363–389. doi:10.2307/2600716
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foot, R., & Walter, A. (2011). China, the United States, and global order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gehring, T. (1994). Dynamic international regimes: Institutions for international environmental governance. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.
   Google Scholar
• Hanson, M. (2012). Advocating the elimination of nuclear weapons: The role of Key individual and coalition states. In T. Ogilvie-White & D. Santoro (Eds.), Slaying the nuclear dragon: Disarmament dynamics in the twenty-first century (pp. 56–84). Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hasenclever, A., Mayer, P., & Rittberger, V. (1997). Theories of international regimes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hirsch, T. (2004). The IAEA additional protocol: What it is and why it matters. Nonproliferation Review, 11, 140–166. doi:10.1080/10736700408436983
   Google Scholar
• Hoffmann, M. J. (2010). Norms and social constructivism in international relations. In R. A. Denemark (Ed.), The International Studies Encyclopedia (pp. 5410–5426). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. doi:10.1111/b.9781444336078.2010.00019.x
   Google Scholar
• Ikenberry, G. J., & Kupchan, C. A. (1990). Socialization and hegemonic power. International Organization, 44, 283–315. doi:10.1017/S002081830003530X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, R. (1995). Indefinite extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty: Risks and reckonings (Acronym Report No. 7). Retrieved from www.acronym.org.uk/acrorep/acro7.htm
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, R. (2010). Assessing the 2010 NPT Review Conference. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 66, 1–10. doi:10.2968/066004001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnstone, I. (2007). The secretary-general as norm entrepreneur. In S. Chesterman (Ed.), Secretary or general? The UN secretary-general in world politics (pp. 123–138). New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Joyner, D. (2011). Interpreting the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Katzenstein, P. J. (1996). Introduction: Alternative perspectives on national security. In P. J. Katzenstein (Ed.), The culture of national security: Norms and identity in world politics (pp. 1–32). New York: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kmentt, A. (2013). How divergent views on nuclear disarmament threaten the NPT. Arms Control Today, 43(10), 8–13.
   Google Scholar
• Kmentt, A. (2015). The development of the international initiative on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons and its effect on the nuclear weapons debate. International Review of the Red Cross, 97, 681–709. doi:10.1017/S1816383116000059
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krasner, S. D. (1983). Structural causes and regime consequences: Regimes as intervening variables. In S. D. Krasner (Ed.), International regimes (pp. 1–21). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Krause, J. (2007). Enlightenment and nuclear order. International Affairs, 83, 483–499. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2346.2007.00633.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krook, M. L., & True, J. (2012). Rethinking the cycles of international norms: The United Nations and the global promotion of gender equality. European Journal of International Relations, 18(1), 103–127. doi:10.1177/1354066110380963
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewis, P. M. (2013). A Middle East free of nuclear weapons: Possible, probable or pipe-dream? International Affairs, 89, 433–450. doi:10.1111/1468-2346.12026
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linklater, A. (2007). Critical theory and world politics: Citizenship, sovereignty and humanity. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Loosch, R. (2000). From “Programme 93+2” to model protocol INFCIRC/540: Negotiating for a multilateral agreement in the International Atomic Energy Agency. In E. Häckel & G. Stein (Eds.), Tightening the reins: Towards a strengthened International Nuclear Safeguards System (pp. 23–66). Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Malaysia. (1999, May 18). Proposal for the Establishment of a High Level Consultation Mechanism, NPT/CONF.2000/PC.III/26 (Working paper submitted by Malaysia).
   Google Scholar
• March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (2004). The logic of appropriateness (ARENA working papers 09). Retrieved from http://www.sv.uio.no/arena/english/research/publications/arena-working-papers/2001-2010/2004/04_09.html
   Google Scholar
• McKeown, R. (2009). Norm regress: US revisionism and the slow death of the torture norm. International Relations, 23, 5–25. doi:10.1177/0047117808100607
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Müller, H. (2003). German national identity and WMD proliferation. Nonproliferation Review, 10(2), 1–20. doi:10.1080/10736700308436927
   Google Scholar
• Müller, H. (2005). A treaty in troubled waters. Reflections on the failed NPT Review Conference. International Spectator, 40(3), 33–44. doi:10.1080/03932720508457135
   Google Scholar
• Müller, H. (2010). Between power and justice: Current problems and perspectives of the NPT regime. Strategic Analysis, 34, 189–201. doi:10.1080/09700160903542740
   Google Scholar
• Müller, H. (2011). A nuclear nonproliferation test: Obama’s nuclear policy and the 2010 NPT Review Conference. Nonproliferation Review, 18, 219–236. doi:10.1080/10736700.2011.549182
   Google Scholar
• Müller, H. (2013). Justice and peace: Good things do not always go together. In G. Hellmann (Ed.), Perspectives on a contested relationship (pp. 43–68). Frankfurt: Campus.
   Google Scholar
• Müller, H. (2017). The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in jeopardy? Internal divisions and the impact of world politics. International Spectator, 52(1), 1–16. doi:10.1080/03932729.2017.1270088
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Müller, H., Dembinski, M., Kelle, A., & Schaper, A. (1993). From black sheep to white angel? The new German export control policy (Report No. 32). Frankfurt am Main: PRIF.
   Google Scholar
• Müller, H., & Wunderlich, C. (2013). Norm dynamics in multilateral arms control: Interests, conflicts and justice. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.
   Google Scholar
• Müller, H., Wunderlich, C., Fey, M., Ricke, K. P., & Schaper, A. (2014). Global Non-Proliferation “Clubs” versus the NPT (Study conducted for the Swedish Radiation Safety Authority).
   Google Scholar
• NAC/NGO Expert Group. (2017, May). Paper to the 1st NPT Review Prep Com at Vienna. Retrieved from http://www.baselpeaceoffice.org/sites/default/files/imce/menwfz/paper_of_the_nac_ngo_expert_group_to_the_npt.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Ogilvie-White, T. (1999). SA’s non-proliferation and disarmament: The importance of the middle ground. In South African Institute of International Affairs (Ed.), South African Yearbook of International Affairs 1999/2000 (pp. 321–326). Johannesburg: South African Institute of International Affairs.
   Google Scholar
• Ogilvie-White, T. (2007). International responses to Iranian nuclear defiance: The Non-Aligned Movement and the issue of non-compliance. European Journal of International Law, 18, 453–476. doi:10.1093/ejil/chm027
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orlov, V., & Trushkin, I. (2011). The Iranian nuclear program: Dilemmas facing Russia. Security Index: A Russian Journal on International Security, 17(2), 27–37.
   Google Scholar
• Pomper, M. A. (2012). The Seoul Nuclear Security Summit: How Much of a Success? (Korea Economic Institute Academic Paper Series). Retrieved from http://keia.org/publication/seoul-nuclear-security-summit-how-much-success
   Google Scholar
• Potter, W., & Mukhatzhanova, G. (2012). Nuclear politics and the Non-Aligned Movement: Principles vs. Pragmatism. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. (2010). Final report of the Preparatory Committee for the 2000 Review Conference of the parties to the treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, NPT/CONF.2010/50 (Vol. I)*. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=NPT/CONF.2010/50%20(VOL.I)
   Google Scholar
• Rühle, M. (2007). Enlightenment in the second nuclear Age. International Affairs, 83, 511–522. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2346.2007.00635.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russian Federation. (2013, April 25). Statement by the Delegation of the Russian Federation at the second session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2015 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. Cluster I (nuclear disarmament), Geneva. Retrieved from http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Disarmament-fora/npt/prepcom13/statements/25April_Russia.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Samore, G. S., Allison, G. T., Arnold, A., Bunn, M., Burns, N., Feldman, S., … Freilich, C. (2015). The Iran nuclear deal. A definitive guide. Cambridge, MA: Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.
   Google Scholar
• Sandholtz, W. (2008). Dynamics of international norm change: Rules against wartime plunder. European Journal of International Relations, 14, 101–131. doi:10.1177/1354066107087766
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandholtz, W., & Stiles, K. W. (2009). International norms and cycles of change. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Santoro, D. (2012). The optimistic nuclear weapon states: The United States and the United Kingdom. In T. Ogilvie-White & D. Santoro (Eds.), Slaying the nuclear dragon: Disarmament dynamics in the twenty-first century (pp. 11–55). Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shaker, M. I. (1980). The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: Origin and implementation 1959–1979 (Vols. 1–2). London: Oceana.
   Google Scholar
• Simon-Michel, J.-H. (2013, April 23). Second Session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2015 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference (Geneva, 22nd April–3 May 2013). Statement by Jean-Hugues Simon-Michel, Ambassador, Permanent Representative of France to the Conference on Disarmament, Head of the French Delegation. Chapter “1”, Geneva. Retrieved from http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Disarmament-fora/npt/prepcom13/statements/24april_france.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Simpson, J. (2001). The 2000 NPT Review Conference. In SIPRI yearbook 2001: Armaments, disarmament and international security (pp. 487–502). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tammen, R. L., Kugler, J., Lemke, D., Stamm, A. C. I. I. I., Abdollahian, M., Alsharabati, C., … Organski, A. F. K. (2000). Power transitions. Strategies for the 21st century. New York, NY: Seven Bridges Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tannenwald, N. (2013). Justice and fairness in the nuclear nonproliferation regime. Ethics and International Affairs, 27, 299–317. doi:10.1017/S0892679413000221
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tarasov, A. (2000). Arms control in Russia today. Comparative Strategy, 19(1), 69–77. doi: 10.1080/01495930008403198
   Google Scholar
• Van Ham, P., & Bosch, O. (2007). Global non-proliferation and counter-terrorism: The role of Resolution 1540 and its implications. In O. Bosch & P. van Ham (Eds.), Global non-proliferation and counter-terrorism: The impact of UNSC 1540 (pp. 3–23). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
   Google Scholar
• Weiner, S. (2011). Retooling efforts to stop the proliferation of WMD expertise. Arms Control Today, 41(10), 14–20.
   Google Scholar
• Welch, D. A. (1993). Justice and the genesis of War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wiener, A. (2004). Contested compliance: Interventions on the normative structure of world politics. European Journal of International Relations, 10(2), 189–234. doi:10.1177/1354066104042934
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiener, A. (2007). The dual quality of norms and governance beyond the state: Sociological and normative approaches to interaction. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 10, 47–69. doi:10.1080/13698230601122412
   Google Scholar
• Wiener, A. (2008). The invisible constitution of politics. Contested norms and international encounters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wiener, A. (2014). A theory of contestation. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Wunderlich, C. (2013). Theoretical approaches in norm dynamics. In H. Müller & C. Wunderlich (Eds.), Norm dynamics in multilateral arms control: Interests, conflicts, and justice (pp. 20–47). Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wunderlich, C. (2014). A ‘rogue’ gone norm entrepreneurial? Iran within the nuclear nonproliferation regime. In W. Wagner, W. Werner, & M. Onderco (Eds.), Deviance in international relations: ‘Rogue states’ and international security (pp. 83–104). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Wunderlich, C. (2017). Schurkenstaaten als Normunternehmer? Iran und die Kontrolle von Massenvernichtungswaffen. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Wunderlich, C., Hellmann, A., Müller, D., Reuter, J., & Schmidt, H. J. (2013). Non-aligned reformers and revolutionaries: Egypt, South Africa, Iran, and North Korea. In H. Müller & C. Wunderlich (Eds.), Norm dynamics in multilateral arms control (pp. 246–295). Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.
   Google Scholar
• Yudin, Y. (2010). Multilateralization of the nuclear fuel cycle: The need to build trust. Geneva: United Nations, UNIDIR.
   Google Scholar