The Humanitarian Initiative on Nuclear Weapons: An Introduction to Global Policy's Special Section
| Author | Matthew Bolton,Elizabeth Minor |
| Date | 01 September 2016 |
| Published date | 01 September 2016 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12326 |
The Humanitarian Initiative on Nuclear
Weapons: An Introduction to Global Policy’s
Special Section
Matthew Bolton
Pace University
Elizabeth Minor
Article 36
Abstract
The dominant paradigm of international relations theory has long seen influence over nuclear arsenals as the preserve of
presidents, premiers and generals of the world’s great powers, not underfunded activists, feminist campaigners, radical nuns
or even diplomats of small states. The approach of this special section could not be more different. In fact, we have intention-
ally curated a collection of articles that try to ‘de-center’the academic conversation about nuclear weapons. The inspiration
for our approach comes from the Humanitarian Initiative on Nuclear Weapons, which since its emergence after the 2010
Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has dramatically reshaped the diplomatic discussions on nuclear
disarmament, led by small states and middle powers. The shift in discourse has been accelerated by revitalized civil society
action, represented by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, a global NGO coalition, as well as renewed
calls for disarmament from religious leaders –most notably Pope Francis. This special section, written from the perspective
of scholars and practitioners associated with the Humanitarian Initiative, examines its dimensions and its potential impact on
global policy making.
The late neo-realist international relations theorist and
staunch partisan for nuclear deterrence Kenneth Waltz
famously scoffed that it would be ‘ridiculous to construct a
theory of international politics based on Malaysia and
Costa Rica’(1986b, p. 61). For Waltz, the anarchic structure
of global politics –characterized by the ‘brooding shadow
of violence’(1986a, p. 98) –was profoundly hostile to the
agency of small states, NGOs and moral entrepreneurs like
faith institutions. In no arena of global policy making
would this seem more evident than in nuclear arms con-
trol. Astoundingly expensive and of world-ending destruc-
tiveness, nuclear weapons represented the embodiment of
concentrated state violence. Influence over the size and
scope of nuclear arsenals was thus the preserve of presi-
dents, premiers and generals of the world’s great powers,
not underfunded activists, feminist campaigners, radical
nuns or even diplomats of small states. Indeed, for Waltz,
the idealistic visions of eliminating nuclear weapons held
by antinuclear campaigners could be profoundly danger-
ous. He argued that ‘nuclear weapons promote peace’
(1986c, p. 343) because ‘Nuclear states are loathe to use
their most powerful weapons’, which serve as the ultimate
deterrent against attack (p. 328). In making such assertions,
neo-realists made claims to scientific objectivity and
detachment that critics have suggested masked an
entrenched conservatism, expressed through patriarchal,
technocratic, militaristic and often colonial discourses (e.g.
Cohn, 1987).
The approach of this special section could not be more
different. In fact, we have intentionally curated a collection
of articles that try to ‘de-center’(Nayak and Selbin, 2010)
the academic conversation about nuclear weapons. All of
the authors are civilians. Four of the five authors work for
NGOs or in academia; the same number are women. As a
deliberate provocation to the entrenched assumptions in
our opening quotation from Waltz, the special section con-
cludes with reflections on nuclear disarmament from a Costa
Rican diplomat. None of us make any claims to be objective
observers. Our interest in this topic arises from our work for
a nuclear weapons free world. All of us are unapologetically
committed to an abolition of nuclear weapons and uncon-
vinced by the neo-realist pessimism about progressive inter-
national policy making. We also try to be open about the
limitations of our positionality. While in some ways we sit
on the margins of nuclear politics, we acknowledge that we
are still cultural and political elites. We are aware of our
social location, which is shaped by problematic European
colonial legacies. And our closeness to the project of ban-
ning nuclear weapons may limit our ability to see important
criticisms of its efforts.
The inspiration for our approach comes from the Humani-
tarian Initiative on Nuclear Weapons, which since its
©2016 University of Durham and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Global Policy (2016) 7:3 doi: 10.1111/1758-5899.12326
Global Policy Volume 7 . Issue 3 . September 2016
380
Special Section Article
To continue reading
Request your trial