Phase 2.0 of the Programme on Nuclear Responsibilities

• Published in: Policy File 2018
• Main Author: Brixey-Williams, Sebastian
• Format: Report
• Language: English
• Subjects: Arms control & disarmament; British American Security Information Council; Government; International cooperation; National security; Nuclear weapons

Crucial elements of the post-Cold War peace and security architecture are disintegrating, precipitated by the breakdown of trust between the major powers. Recent rhetoric and emerging capabilities lower the nuclear threshold and weaken vital norms like the nuclear taboo. This is exacerbated by the re-emergence of ideas within the US of strategic dominance over strategic parity, and the belief in Russia that they need to show steadfast resolve in developing new offensive systems. The collapse of a number of arms control agreements has raised questions about the remaining instruments' future ability to deliver stability or create the conditions for further reductions. If we can no longer depend upon traditional arms control approaches, we need to step back and rethink the basis for international cooperation in addressing the common security challenges of the 21st century. One key aspect of this is the conception of state responsibilities to the global community, which include the responsibilities of states and state leaders around nuclear weapons we have entitled 'nuclear responsibilities. Although responsibilities around nuclear weapons may feel like 'common sense', there is no single agreed code of conduct or set of guiding principles on state responsibilities in this area. Responsibilities are subjective beliefs, and customarily they emerge from multiple arenas. They might be placed on two axes - national and international responsibilities on one axis, and legal and non-legal responsibilities on the other which a range of national security, domestic political, international diplomatic, and in the case of state leaders and officials, personal ethical, considerations may be placed. All of this complicates a process of identifying common ground and difference, but underlines the need for dialogue and clarity. Developing shared understandings of responsibility and respect for differing positions will take open-minded engagement and cooperation over a sustained period.