Nuclear cooperation with non-NPT member states? An elite-driven model of norm contestation

Reference list

• Ackerman, G. (2006, March 2). Statement by Congressman Gary Ackerman on U.S.-India nuclear agreement. Retrieved from https://www.indianembassy.org/archives_details.php?nid=758
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, W. (2006a, July 10). The nuclear deal in U.S. Congress: From skepticism to trust. Indian Express, A10.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, W. (2006b, September 1). The Indian-American community Comes into Its political Own. Indian Express, A12.
   Google Scholar
• Barnett, M., & Finnemore, M. (1999). The politics, power, and pathologies of international organizations. International Organization, 53, 699–732. doi: 10.1162/002081899551048
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bengelsdorf, H., Bunn, G., Cirincione, J., Einhorn, R. J., Gard, R., Gilinsky, V., … Weiss, L. (2005, November 18). Experts’ advice on the India nuclear deal. Retrieved from http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=17758
   Google Scholar
• Bloomfield, A. (2017). Resisting the responsibility to protect. In A. Bloomfield & S. V. Scott (Eds.), Norm antipreneurs and the politics of resistance to global normative change (pp. 20–38). Oxon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bloomfield, A., & Scott, S. V. (Eds.) (2017). Norm antipreneurs and the politics of resistance to global normative change. Oxon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Boese, W. (2005). Suppliers weigh Indian nuclear cooperation. Arms Control Today, 35(9), 42.
   Google Scholar
• Bower, A. (2017). Norms without the great powers: International Law and changing social standards in world politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Brookings Institution. (2008, July 30). U.S.-India nuclear agreement. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/20080730_india.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Bumiller, E., & Sengupta, S. (2006, March 3). Bush and India reach pact that allows nuclear sales. New York Times, p. A1.
   Google Scholar
• Burr, W. (2014). A scheme of “control”: The United States and the origins of the nuclear suppliers’ group, 1974–1976. The International History Review, 36, 252–276. doi: 10.1080/07075332.2013.864690
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carranza, M. E. (2007). From non-proliferation to post-proliferation: Explaining the U.S.-India nuclear deal. Contemporary Security Policy, 28, 464–493. doi: 10.1080/13523260701737760
   Google Scholar
• CNN Politics. (2008, September 28). House approves nuclear pact with India. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/28/us.india/index.html
   Google Scholar
• De Nevers, R. (2007). Imposing international norms: Great powers and norm enforcement. International Studies Review, 9, 53–80. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2486.2007.00645.x
   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). Peace Research Institute Frankfurt.
   Google Scholar
• Deitelhoff, N., & Zimmermann, L. (2016, March 16–19). A Phoenix tale? The dynamics of norm robustness. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Atlanta, Georgia.
   Google Scholar
• Dixon, J. (2017). Rhetorical adaptation and resistance to international norms. Perspectives on Politics, 15, 83–99. doi: 10.1017/S153759271600414X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Farrell, T. (2002). Constructivist security studies: Portrait of a research program. International Studies Review, 4, 49–72. doi: 10.1111/1521-9488.t01-1-00252
   Google Scholar
• Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization, 52, 887–917. doi: 10.1162/002081898550789
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• For Bush, now comes the tough part: U.S.-India civilian nuclear agreement faces obstacles in Congress. (2006, March 2). Associated Press. Retrieved from http://www.nbcnews.com/id/11645988/ns/politics/t/bush-now-comes-tough-part/
   Google Scholar
• George, A., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goodman, R., & Jinks, D. (2004). How to influence states: Socialization and international human rights Law. Duke Law Journal, 54, 621–703.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hibbs, M. (2010). Nuclear suppliers group and the IAEA additional protocol. Nuclear Energy Brief. New York, NY: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Retrieved from http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=41393
   Google Scholar
• Hoffmann, M. J. (2007, March 2). My norm is better than your norm: Contestation and norm dynamics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Chicago.
   Google Scholar
• Hymans, J. E. C. (2006). The psychology of nuclear proliferation: Identity, emotions, and foreign policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Joshi, S. (2007, May 15). Commercial motivations add impetus to Indo-U.S. nuclear agreement. WMD Insights, 31–40. Retrieved from www.wmdinsights.com/PDF/WMDInsights_May07Issue.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Kerr, M. K., Nikitin, M. B. D., & Holt, M. (2014). Nuclear energy cooperation with foreign countries: Issues for Congress (Congressional Research Service Report #R41910). Retrieved from https://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R41910.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Kirk, J. A. (2008). Indian-Americans and the US–India nuclear agreement: Consolidation of An ethnic lobby? Foreign Policy Analysis, 4, 275–300. doi: 10.1111/j.1743-8594.2008.00070.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kowert, P., & Legro, J. (1996). Norms, identity, and their limits: A theoretical reprise. In P. Katzenstein (Ed.), The culture of national security: Norms and identity in world politics (pp. 451–497). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Krook, M. L., & True, J. (2012). Rethinking the life cycles of international norms: The United Nations and the global promotion of gender equality. European Journal of International Relations, 18, 103–127. doi: 10.1177/1354066110380963
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lantis, J. S. (2016a). Arms and influence: U.S. Technology innovations and the evolution of international security norms. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lantis, J. S. (2016b). Non-proliferation and norm discourse: An agentic constructivist model of U.S. Nuclear export policy changes. Politics & Policy, 44. doi:10.1111/polp.12153.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lantis, J. S. (2017). To boldly go where no country has gone before: U.S. norm antipreneurism and the weaponization of outer space. In A. Bloomfield & S. V. Scott (Eds.), Norm antipreneurs and the politics of resistance to global normative change (pp. 197–214). Oxon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Levi, M. A., & Ferguson, C. D. (2006, June). U.S.-India nuclear cooperation: A strategy for moving forward. Washington, DC: Council on Foreign Relations.
   Google Scholar
• McGoldrick, F., Bengelsdorf, H., & Scheinman, L. (2005). The US-India nuclear deal: Taking stock. Arms Control Today, 35(8), 6–12.
   Google Scholar
• McKeown, R. (2009). Norm regress: US revisionism and the slow death of the torture norm. International Relations, 23(1), 5–25. doi: 10.1177/0047117808100607
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mistry, D., & Ganguly, S. (2006). The US-India nuclear pact: A good deal. Current History, 105(694), 375–379.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Müller, H., & Wunderlich, C. (Eds.). (2013). Norm dynamics in multilateral arms control: Interests, conflicts, and justice. Athens: University of Georgia Press. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt46n7ks
   Google Scholar
• Nadelmann, E. A. (1990). Global prohibition regimes: The evolution of norms in international society. International Organization, 44, 479–526. doi:10.1017.50020818300035384 doi: 10.1017/S0020818300035384
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Panke, D., & Petersohn, U. (2012). Why international norms disappear sometimes. European Journal of International Relations, 18, 719–742. doi: 10.1177/1354066111407690
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Payne, R. A. (2001). Persuasion, frames and norm construction. European Journal of International Relations, 7, 37–61. doi: 10.1177/1354066101007001002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perkovich, G. (2006). The end of the non-proliferation regime? Current History, 105(694), 355–362.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramesh, R. (2008, July 23). Indian vote clear path for landmark US nuclear deal. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/23/india.nuclear
   Google Scholar
• Rice, C. (2006, April 5). Remarks before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Retrieved from https://2001-2009.state.gov/secretary/rm/2006/64136.htm
   Google Scholar
• Risse, T. (2000). “Let’s argue!”: Communicative action in world politics. International Organization, 54, 1–39. doi: 10.1162/002081800551109
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosert, E., & Schirmbeck, S. (2007). Zur erosion internationaler normen. Folterverbot und Nukleares Tabu in der Diskussion. Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen, 14, 253–287. doi: 10.5771/0946-7165-2007-2-253
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, F. W. (1994). The Zangger Committee: Its history and future role. The Nonproliferation Review, 2, 38–44. doi: 10.1080/10736709408436565
   Google Scholar
• Sending, O. J., & Neumann, I. B. (2011). Banking on power: How some practices in an international organization anchor others. In E. Adler & V. Pouliot (Eds.), International practices (pp. 231–254). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shanahan, D. (2008, August 2). Canberra approves US-India nuke pact. The Australian. Retrieved from http://www.thauaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24115363-5013871,00.html
   Google Scholar
• Shannon, V. P. (2000). Norms are what states make of them: The political psychology of norm violation. International Studies Quarterly, 41, 293–316. doi: 10.1111/0020-8833.00159
   Google Scholar
• Tellis, A. (2006). The evolution of U.S.-Indian ties: Missile defense in an emerging strategic relationship. International Security, 30(4), 113–151. doi: 10.1162/isec.2006.30.4.113
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weiss, L. (2007). U.S.-India nuclear cooperation: Better later than sooner. The Nonproliferation Review, 14, 429–457. doi: 10.1080/10736700701611738
   Google Scholar
• Wendt, A. (1995). Constructing international politics. International Security, 20(1), 71–81. doi: 10.2307/2539217
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiener, A. (2004). Contested compliance: Interventions on the normative structure of world politics. European Journal of International Relations, 10, 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(1), 47–69. doi: 10.1080/13698230601122412
   Google Scholar
• Wiener, A. (2014). A theory of contestation. Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Wiener, A., & Puetter, U. (2009). The quality of norms is what actors make of It critical- constructivist research on norms. The Journal of International Law and International Relations, 5(4), 1–16.
   Google Scholar