Nuclear norms in global governance: A progressive research agenda

Reference list

• Abraham, I. (2006). The ambivalence of nuclear histories. Osiris, 21(1), 49–65. doi: 10.1086/507135
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Acharya, A. (2004). How ideas spread: Whose norms matter? Norm localization and institutional change in Asian regionalism. International Organization, 58, 239–275. doi: 10.1017/S0020818304582024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adler, E. (1997). Seizing the middle ground: Constructivism in world politics. European Journal of International Relations, 3, 319–363. doi: 10.1177/1354066197003003003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arnett, E. (1998). Norms and nuclear proliferation: Sweden’s lessons for assessing Iran. The Nonproliferation Review, 5(2), 32–43. doi: 10.1080/10736709808436705
   Google Scholar
• Becker-Jakob, U., Hofmann, G., Müller, H., & Wunderlich, C. (2013). Good international citizens: Canada, Germany, and Sweden. In H. Müller & C. Wunderlich (Eds.), Norm dynamics in multilateral arms control: Interests, conflicts, and justice (pp. 207–245). Athens: University of Georgia Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bleiker, R., & Hutchison, E. (2008). Fear no more: Emotions and world politics. Review of International Studies, 34, 115–135. doi: 10.1017/S0260210508007821
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Budjeryn, M. (2015). The power of the NPT: International norms and Ukraine’s nuclear disarmament. The Nonproliferation Review, 22, 203–237. doi: 10.1080/10736700.2015.1119968
   Google Scholar
• Burai, E. (2016). Parody as norm contestation: Russian normative justifications in Georgia and Ukraine and their implications for global norms. Global Society, 30, 67–77. doi: 10.1080/13600826.2015.1092424
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carranza, M. E. (2016). India-Pakistan nuclear diplomacy: Constructivism and the prospects for nuclear arms control and disarmament in South Asia. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
   Google Scholar
• Carranza, M. E. (2018). Deterrence or taboo? Explaining the non-use of nuclear weapons during the Indo-Pakistani post-tests nuclear crises. Contemporary Security Policy, 39, 441–463. doi:10.1080/13523260.2017.1418725.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Checkel, J. T. (2005). International institutions and socialization in Europe. International Organization, 4, 801–826.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, A. (1998). Israel and the bomb. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, A. (2010). The worst-kept secret: Israel’s bargain with the bomb. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cohn, C. (1987). Sex and death in the rational world of defense intellectuals. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 12, 687–718. doi: 10.1086/494362
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper, N. (2006). Putting disarmament back in the frame. Review of International Studies, 32, 353–376. doi: 10.1017/S0260210506007066
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Craig, C., & Ruzicka, J. (2013). The nonproliferation complex. Ethics & International Affairs, 27, 329–348. doi: 10.1017/S0892679413000257
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Crawford, N. C. (2000). The passion of world politics: Propositions on emotion and emotional relationships. International Security, 24(4), 116–156. doi: 10.1162/016228800560327
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duncanson, C., & Eschle, C. (2008). Gender and the nuclear weapons state: A feminist critique of the UK government’s white paper on trident. New Political Science, 30, 545–563. doi: 10.1080/07393140802518120
   Google Scholar
• Duncombe, C. (2016). Representation, recognition and foreign policy in the Iran–U.S. relationship. European Journal of International Relations, 22, 622–645. doi: 10.1177/1354066115597049
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Engelkamp, S., Glaab, K., & Renner, J. (2014). Office hours: How (critical) norm research can regain its voice. World Political Science Review, 10, 33–62. doi: 10.1515/wpsr-2014-0002
   Google Scholar
• Farrell, T., & Lambert, H. (2001). Courting controversy: International law, national norms and American nuclear use. Review of International Studies, 27, 309–326. doi: 10.1017/S0260210501003096
   Web of Science ®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: University of Georgia Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fields, J. R. (Ed.) 2014. State behavior and the nuclear nonproliferation regime. Athens: University of Georgia Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fierke, K. M. (2002). Links across the abyss: Language and logic in international relations. International Studies Quarterly, 46, 331–354. doi: 10.1111/1468-2478.00236
   Web of Science ®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
• Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (2001). Taking stock: The constructivist research program in international relations and comparative politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 4, 391–416. doi: 10.1146/annurev.polisci.4.1.391
   Web of Science ®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
• Freedman, L. (2013). Disarmament and other nuclear norms. The Washington Quarterly, 36(2), 93–108. doi: 10.1080/0163660X.2013.791085
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grotto, A. (2010). Why do states that oppose nuclear proliferation resist new nonproliferation obligations: Three logics of nonproliferation decision-making. Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law, 18, 1–44.
   Google Scholar
• Hanson, M. (2010). The advocacy states: Their normative role before and after the U.S. call for nuclear zero. The Nonproliferation Review, 17, 71–93. doi: 10.1080/10736700903484678
   Google Scholar
• Hanson, M. (2018). Normalizing zero nuclear weapons: The humanitarian road to the prohibition treaty. Contemporary Security Policy, 39, 464–486. doi: 10.1080/13523260.2017.1421344
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrington de Santana, A. (2009). Nuclear weapons as the currency of power: Deconstructing the fetishism of force. The Nonproliferation Review, 16, 325–345. doi: 10.1080/10736700903255029
   Google Scholar
• Havercroft, J. (2017). Symposium on contestation in international relations: Introduction. Polity, 49, 100–08. doi: 10.1086/689979
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heller, R., & Kahl, M. (2013). Tracing and understanding “bad” norm dynamics in counterterrorism: The current debates in IR research. Critical Studies on Terrorism, 6, 414–428. doi: 10.1080/17539153.2013.836305
   Google Scholar
• Hensengerth, O. (2015). Global norms in domestic politics: Environmental norm contestation in Cambodia’s hydropower sector. The Pacific Review, 28, 505–528. doi: 10.1080/09512748.2015.1012107
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hopf, T. (2013). Common-sense constructivism and hegemony in world politics. International Organization, 67, 317–354. doi: 10.1017/S0020818313000040
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hymans, J. E. (2006). The psychology of nuclear proliferation: Identity, emotions and foreign policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jasper, U. (2012). The ambivalent neutral: Rereading Switzerland’s nuclear history. The Nonproliferation Review, 19, 267–292. doi: 10.1080/10736700.2012.691021
   Google Scholar
• Jonter, T. (2016). The Key to nuclear restraint: The Swedish plans to acquire nuclear weapons during the cold War. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Graham Jr, T. (2004). Nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear terrorism. Transnational Law, 17, 89–96.
   Google Scholar
• Kier, E. (1995). Culture and military doctrine: France between the wars. International Security, 19(4), 65–93. doi: 10.2307/2539120
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knopf, J. W. (2013). Nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation: Examining the linkage argument. International Security, 37(3), 92–132. doi: 10.1162/ISEC_a_00109
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knopf, J. W. (2018). After diffusion: Challenges to enforcing nonproliferation and disarmament norms. Contemporary Security Policy, 39, 367–398. doi: 10.1080/13523260.2018.1431446
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krause, K. (2011). Leashing the dogs of war: Arms control from sovereignty to governmentality. Contemporary Security Policy, 32, 20–39. doi: 10.1080/13523260.2011.556823
   Google Scholar
• Krause, K., & Latham, A. (1998). Constructing non-proliferation and arms control: The norms of western practice. Contemporary Security Policy, 19, 23–54. doi: 10.1080/13523269808404178
   Google Scholar
• Krebs, R. R., & Jackson, P. T. (2007). Twisting tongues and twisting arms: The power of political rhetoric. European Journal of International Relations, 13, 35–66. doi: 10.1177/1354066107074284
   Web of Science ®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
• Kumar, A. V. (2014). Norm entrepreneur, catalyst or challenger? India in the nuclear non-proliferation narrative. South Asian Survey, 21, 90–111. doi: 10.1177/0971523115592493
   Google Scholar
• Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 170–196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lantis, J. S. (2018). Nuclear cooperation with non-NPT member states? An elite-driven model of norm contestation. Contemporary Security Policy, 39, 399–418. doi: 10.1080/13523260.2017.1398367
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Long, W. J., & Grillot, S. R. (2000). Ideas, beliefs, and nuclear policies: The cases of South Africa and Ukraine. The Nonproliferation Review, 7, 24–40. doi: 10.1080/10736700008436792
   Google Scholar
• March, J., & Olsen, J. (2011). The logic of appropriateness. In R. Goodin (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of political science (pp. 478–494). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Martin, L. (1999). The contributions of rational choice: A defense of pluralism. International Security, 24(2), 74–83. doi: 10.1162/016228899560158
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moshirzadeh, H. (2007). Discursive foundations of Iran’s nuclear policy. Security Dialogue, 38, 521–543. doi: 10.1177/0967010607084999
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Müller, H. (2003). German national identity and WMD proliferation. The Nonproliferation Review, 10, 1–20. doi: 10.1080/10736700308436927
   Google Scholar
• Müller, H., & Wunderlich, C. (Eds.) (2013). Norm dynamics in multilateral arms control: Interests, conflicts, and justice. Athens: University of Georgia Press.
   Google Scholar
• Müller, H., & Wunderlich, C. (2018). Not lost in contestation: How norm entrepreneurs frame norm development in the nuclear nonproliferation regime. Contemporary Security Policy, 39, 341–366. doi:10.1080/13523260.2017.1394032 doi: 10.1080/13523260.2017.1399624
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelissen, R. M., & Mulder, L. B. (2013). What makes a sanction “stick”? The effects of financial and social sanctions on norm compliance. Social Influence, 8, 70–80. doi: 10.1080/15534510.2012.729493
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Reilly, K. P. (2014). Nuclear proliferation and the psychology of political leadership: Beliefs, motivations and perceptions. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Paul, T. V. (2009). The tradition of non-use of nuclear weapons. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pauly, R. (2017). Nuclear weapons in wargames: Testing traditions and taboos. Presented at the 2017 international studies association conference, Baltimore, MD.
   Google Scholar
• Pelopidas, B. (2011). The oracles of proliferation: How experts maintain a biased historical reading that limits policy innovation. The Nonproliferation Review, 18, 297–314. doi: 10.1080/10736700.2011.549185
   Google Scholar
• Pelopidas, B. (2016). Nuclear weapons scholarship as a case of self-censorship in security studies. Journal of Global Security Studies, 1, 326–336. doi: 10.1093/jogss/ogw017
   Google Scholar
• Press, D. G., Sagan, S. D., & Valentino, B. A. (2013). Atomic aversion: Experimental evidence on taboos, traditions, and the non-use of nuclear weapons. American Political Science Review, 107, 188–206. doi: 10.1017/S0003055412000597
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rhodes, S., & Harutyunyan, A. (2010). Extending citizenship to emigrants: Democratic contestation and a new global norm. International Political Science Review, 31, 470–493. doi: 10.1177/0192512110374044
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ritchie, N. (2010). Relinquishing nuclear weapons: Identities, networks and the British bomb. International Affairs, 86, 465–487. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2346.2010.00892.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ritchie, N. (2012). A nuclear weapons-free world? Britain, trident and the challenges ahead. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Rublee, M. R. (2008). Taking stock of the nuclear nonproliferation regime: Using social psychology to understand regime effectiveness. International Studies Review, 10, 420–450. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2486.2008.00799.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rublee, M. R. (2009). Nonproliferation norms: Why states choose nuclear restraint. Athens: University of Georgia Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rublee, M. R. (2014). Construction of threat and nuclear nonproliferation measures. In J. R. Fields (Ed.), State behavior and the nuclear nonproliferation regime (pp. 84–105). Athena: University of Georgia Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rublee, M. R. (2015). Fantasy counterfactual: A nuclear-armed Ukraine. Survival, 57(2), 145–156. doi: 10.1080/00396338.2015.1026091
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruzicka, J., & Wheeler, N. J. (2010). The puzzle of trusting relationships in the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. International Affairs, 86, 69–85. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2346.2010.00869.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sagan, S. D. (1996/1997). Why do states build nuclear weapons? Three models in search of a bomb. International Security, 21(3), 54–86. doi:10.1162/isec.21.3.54 doi: 10.2307/2539273
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sagan, S. D., & Vaynman, J. (2011). Conclusion: Lessons learned from the 2010 nuclear posture review. The Nonproliferation Review, 18, 237–262. doi: 10.1080/10736700.2011.549183
   Google Scholar
• Tannenwald, N. (1999). The nuclear taboo: The United States and the normative basis of nuclear non-use. International Organization, 53, 433–468. doi: 10.1162/002081899550959
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tannenwald, N. (2013). Justice and fairness in the nuclear nonproliferation regime. Ethics & International Affairs, 27, 299–317. doi: 10.1017/S0892679413000221
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thakur, R. (2015). Nuclear weapons and international security: Collected essays. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Walker, W. (2018). Managing, reconciling, and manipulating the deterrence and disarmament norms: The case of the United Kingdom. Contemporary Security Policy, 39, 419–440. doi: 10.1080/13523260.2017.1410615
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weber, J. M., Kopelman, S., & Messick, D. M. (2004). A conceptual review of decision making in social dilemmas: Applying a logic of appropriateness. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 281–307. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0803_4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Welsh, J. M. (2013). Norm contestation and the responsibility to protect. Global Responsibility to Protect, 5, 365–396. doi: 10.1163/1875984X-00504002
   Google Scholar
• Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: The social construction of power politics. International Organization, 46, 391–425. doi: 10.1017/S0020818300027764
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiener, A. (2014). A theory of contestation. Heidelberg: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, W. (2007). The winning weapon? Rethinking nuclear weapons in light of Hiroshima. International Security, 31(4), 162–179. doi: 10.1162/isec.2007.31.4.162
   Web of Science ®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 (pp. 83–104). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Wunderlich, C., Hellmann, A., Müller, D., Reuter, J., & Schmidt, H. (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: Interests, conflicts, and justice (pp. 248–295). Athens: University of Georgia Press.
   Google Scholar