Hierarchy, revisionism, and subordinate actors: The TPNW and the subversion of the nuclear order
| Author | Naomi Egel,Steven Ward |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/13540661221112611 |
| Published date | 01 December 2022 |
| Date | 01 December 2022 |
https://doi.org/10.1177/13540661221112611
European Journal of
International Relations
2022, Vol. 28(4) 751 –776
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/13540661221112611
journals.sagepub.com/home/ejt
E
JR
I
Hierarchy, revisionism,
and subordinate actors: The
TPNW and the subversion of
the nuclear order
Naomi Egel
Stanford University, USA
Steven Ward
University of Cambridge, UK
Abstract
Why and how do weak states challenge the status quo? This article builds on analyses
of hierarchy in International Relations to develop a more comprehensive and inclusive
understanding of the concept of revisionism. We argue that while weak actors cannot
generally directly challenge their position in a stratified hierarchy, they may be able to
undermine or subvert the discourses that constitute these hierarchies. This approach
is likely to be attractive and feasible under two conditions: when other approaches
to reform have been frustrated, and when social and political resources are available
to facilitate such subversive challenges. We illustrate this argument by analyzing the
Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons as a subversive revisionist project. Small
states—frustrated by their inability to negotiate meaningful reform through the status
quo framework—partnered with civil society and drew upon discursive resources
developed during prior subversive revisionist projects in an effort to stigmatize nuclear
weapons and subvert the discourses constituting the advantaged positions of those
possessing them. While the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW)
is unlikely to directly persuade nuclear weapon states to abandon their arsenals, it
could have unpredictable consequences across a related range of hierarchic fields that
constitute the status quo order.
Corresponding author:
Steven Ward, Department of Politics and International Studies, University of Cambridge, Alison Richard
Building, Cambridge CB3 9DT, UK.
Email: sw986@cam.ac.uk.
1112611EJT0010.1177/13540661221112611European Journal of International RelationsEgel and Ward
research-article2022
Article
752 European Journal of International Relations 28(4)
Keywords
Nuclear diplomacy, international order, International Relations, revisionism, hierarchy,
legitimacy
In 2017, 122 states passed a treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons. Missing from the nego-
tiations were states that possessed nuclear weapons. The effort was led by small nonnu-
clear states with little leverage. Yet supporters and opponents highlight the revisionist
nature of the initiative, describing the treaty as a fundamental challenge to the legitimacy
of nuclear weapons and the system of deterrence (e.g. Acheson, 2018; Fabricius, 2017;
Fihn, 2018; Ford, 2017).
Revisionism is a popular topic in International Relations (IR)—the question of why
and how states grow dissatisfied and seek change is at the center of much prominent
work in the field. However, these treatments typically focus on great powers or regional
powers. Explaining revisionism usually involves identifying the factors that drive mate-
rially powerful states to expend resources on extra-security objectives. This is partly
because conventional conceptions of revisionism are informed by broadly realist assump-
tions about the implications of anarchy, which suggest that significant challenges to the
status quo can only be undertaken by states with substantial economic and military capa-
bilities. From this perspective, the grievances of weaker actors merit little attention.
Indeed, this is why the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) is puz-
zling. Surely the leaders and diplomatic representatives of the TPNW’s proponents
understand the futility of an effort to dramatically challenge the status quo from such
disadvantaged positions. Why do they bother?
We argue that this view reflects an unnecessarily constrained conception of revision-
ism. Over the past decade, analytical frameworks that take hierarchy seriously have pro-
liferated in IR. Because these approaches theorize order in ways that go beyond the
distribution of material capabilities, they facilitate a broader understanding of revision-
ism. Frameworks rooted in hierarchy make it possible to theorize the assumptions, ideas,
and discourses that form the basis of stratification. This exercise implies that revisionist
projects can produce change in two ways: by challenging the stratification of states itself
or by challenging the constitutive foundations of stratification. The former approach
encompasses conventional understandings of revisionism and generally requires sub-
stantial material capabilities to succeed. The latter approach—which we label subversive
revisionism—aims at a different target and requires different resources to be feasible. We
argue that these challenges can be undertaken by a wider range of actors—including
materially weak states. This is the sort of revisionist project, we argue, that the TPNW
represents. Other examples of this type of revisionism include decolonization move-
ments in the mid-20th century, the Cold War Non-Aligned Movement, and the New
International Economic Order of the 1970s.
Prior work has depicted the TPNW (as we do) as a form of resistance by subordinate
actors against a hegemonic nuclear order and as an effort to shift the normative value of
nuclear possession (e.g. Ritchie, 2019; Ritchie and Egeland, 2018). Our contribution is
to locate this effort within a broader theoretical and conceptual context and, by doing so,
to simultaneously advance the field’s understanding of the TPNW and of hierarchy and
To continue reading
Request your trial