Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Diplomatic communication and resilient governance: problems of governing nuclear weapons

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of International Relations and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article examines the resilience of governance. My descriptive argument identifies variations of resilience by analysing the evolution of contestation and decontestation of governance-constituting institutions in the foreground and background layers of governance. My explanatory argument distinguishes different modes of diplomatic communication, ranging from coercion (most closed) via declaration, haggle, and problem-solving to polylogue (most open). While the occurrence of none of these modes is inconsequential, producing resilience in the foreground and background layers does not become possible unless problem-solving and polylogue, respectively, come to dominate communicative encounters. My abductive analysis of nuclear weapons governance underlines the plausibility of this conceptual framework and elaborates on it further. In the past two decades, communicative practices sidelined open modes of communication. This made the resilience of nuclear weapons governance decline. This study makes three contributions: it provides more details on how to describe governance resilience; it shows that additional explanatory power is to be gained by looking at the breadth of communication employed by diplomats; and it contributes to a better grasp of what keeps nuclear governance together and what threatens to tear it apart.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. I thank Martin Senn for introducing me to the work of Hayek. See also Kornprobst and Senn (2016a).

  2. Bourdieu (interviewed in Lamaison 1986) employs this metaphor in order to capture something much more fundamental than the rules Young writes about. Rules of the game are located in the doxa.

  3. On these ‘how possible’ questions, see Laffey and Weldes (1997).

  4. For more recent contributions, see Sartori (2002) and Jakobsen (2011).

  5. Similar work, employing more sociological micro-foundations, includes Krebs and Jackson (2017) and Adler-Nissen (2014).

  6. I choose the term polylogue because it highlights heterogeneity (Kristeva 1977) as well as it transcends some of the divide between research on strategic communication (e.g. advocacy literature) and truth-seeking (Habermasian-inspired) communication. Some authors using the term tend more towards strategic communication (Kerbrat-Orecchioni 2004), whereas others (Wimmer 2004) approximate the truth-seeking end of the spectrum.

  7. The 1995 Conference was both a Review and Extension Conference (RevExCon).

  8. The PrepComs for the 1995 Review and Extension Conference started in 1993. This was the first review cycle in the new, post-Cold War era. This is why I chose 1993 as the starting year of my analysis. The most recent RevCon took place in May 2015.

  9. I conducted the semi-structured interviews in Vienna and New York from 2013 to 2015. Taken together, they helped me generate novel insights for the entire time period under scrutiny.

  10. While my descriptive analysis relies heavily on the fourth source, my explanatory analysis draws from the first three sources. In addition to these sources, I also attended several informal meetings in the 2010–2015 review cycle. I use the insights I gained from this as background knowledge.

  11. An overview of states having signed additional protocols can be found at https://www.iaea.org.

  12. Decision 1 (7) of the 1995 RevExCon, NPT/CONF.1995/32 (Part 1), Annex.

  13. Even in the very constructive atmosphere of the 2010 RevCon, this issue was very controversial (Badr 2010).

  14. At the 2013 NPT PrepCom in Geneva, for instance, disagreements on security guarantees featured prominently: NPT/CONF/.2015/PC.II/WP.24; NPT/CONF/.2015/PC.II/WP.15; NPT/CONF/.2015/PC.II/WP.38. These documents, all well as all others cited below without a web address, are available at www.reachingcriticalwill.org.

  15. Art 57, NPT/CONF.2010/50 (Vol. I, Part I).

  16. Art 30, NPT/CONF.2010/50 (Vol. I, Part II).

  17. Without the ratification of the United States and China, the treaty cannot enter into force.

  18. Preamble, NPT. On this governing imperative more generally, see Kornprobst and Senn (2016b, 2017).

  19. Humanitarian Pledge, Vienna, December 2015; available at http://www.icanw.org.

  20. After the analysed time period, HI gained even further momentum. In October 2016, the First Committee decided to convene in 2017 a United Nations conference to negotiate the prohibition of nuclear weapons (A/C.1/71/L.41).

  21. See, for instance, the programme of the Vienna Conference, which is available at http://www.bmeia.gv.at.

  22. Delegate of a Latin American NNWS, interviewed in Vienna on 4 June, 2013.

  23. Opportunities for economic coercion are built into the FY2015 Consolidated Appropriations Act. One of the strings attached to aid is that Egypt ‘is sustaining the strategic relationship with the United States’. See Sharp (2015) for further details. For a subtle application of this provision see Gottemoeller (2015).

  24. Delegate of a Latin American NNWS, interviewed in Vienna on 4 June, 2013.

  25. Former delegate of a North American NNWS, interviewed in Vienna on 8 July, 2013.

  26. NNWS under the US nuclear umbrella, or hoping to move under it, have defended Washington and, to some extent, NWS more generally. Delegate of a large Eurasian NNWS, and delegate of a small Eurasian NNWS, both interviewed in New York on 17 February, 2015.

  27. The declaratory salvos already started in the first PrepCom (Delegate of a Middle Eastern NNWS, interviewed in Vienna on 21 March, 2013).

  28. Document on Substantive Issues submitted by Indonesia on Behalf of the Group of Non-aligned and Other States, Preparatory Committee, Geneva, 12–16 September, 1994, available at http://cns.miis.edu.

  29. Letter dated 17 April, 1995, from the Representatives of France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America addressed to the Secretary-General of the 1995 RevExCon, available at http://www.un.org.

  30. See, for instance, Christopher (1995).

  31. Letter dated 17 April, 1995, from the Permanent Representative of the People’s Republic of China to the Secretary-General of the 1995 RevExCon, available at http://www.un.org.

  32. I borrow this distinction from Sergio de Queiroz Duarte (2006), p. 5, who was the President of the 2005 RevCon.

  33. Art 11, NPT/CONF.2000/28 (Part I); Art 57, NPT/CONF.2010/50 (Vol. I, Part I).

  34. Resolution on the Middle East, Conference, NPT/CONF.1995/32 (Part I), Annex.

  35. South Africa and Canada.

  36. Delegate of a European NNWS, interviewed in Vienna on 4 April, 2013.

  37. Contestations about images are akin to paradigmatic scholarly debates. Meaningful communication is rare. Shouting matches are the rule.

  38. Delegate of a Middle Eastern NNWS, interviewed in Vienna on 4 April, 2013.

  39. Humanitarian Pledge, Vienna, December 2015; available at http://www.icanw.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/HINW14vienna_Pledge_Document.pdf. Accessed 3 Jan 2018.

References

  • Abbott, Kenneth W., and Duncan Snidal. 2000. Hard and Soft Law in International Governance. International Organization 54 (3): 421–456.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adger, W.Neil. 2000. Social and Ecological Resilience: Are They Related? Progress in Human Geography 24 (3): 347–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adler, Emanuel, and Steven Bernstein. 2005. Knowledge in Power: The Epistemic Construction of Global Governance. In Power in Global Governance, ed. Michael Barnett, and Raymond Duvall, 294–318. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adler-Nissen, Rebecca. 2014. Opting out of the European Union: Diplomacy, Sovereignty and European Integration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Albar, Syed Hamid. 2005. Statement on Behalf of the Group of Non-Aligned States Parties, General Debate, NPT Review Conference, New York, 2 May.

  • Amano, Yukiya. 2009. Making the Agenda Stick: Lessons Learned From the 2007 NPT PrepCom. Nonproliferation Review 16 (1): 15–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle, 1975. The Art of Rhetoric. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armitage, Derek. 2008. Governance and the Commons in a Multi-level World. International Journal of the Commons 2 (1): 7–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baali, Abdullah. 2000. Closing Remarks by the Conference President, 19 May.

  • Bächtiger, André, Simon Niemeyer, Michael Neblo, Marco R. Steenbergen, and Jörg Steiner. 2010. Disentangling Diversity in Deliberative Democracy: Competing Theories, Their Blind Spots and Complementarities. Journal of Political Philosophy 18 (1): 32–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Badr, Hisham. 2010. Statement of the Group of Non-Aligned States Parties, Main Committee I, New York, 7 May.

  • Bang, Henrik. 2003. Governance as Political Communication. In Governance as Social and Political Communication, ed. Henrik Bang, 7–23. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnett, Michael. 2013. Humanitarian Governance. Annual Review of Political Science 16: 379–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baruch, Bernard (1946) The Baruch Plan. http://www.atomicarchive.com.

  • Bednar, Jenna. 2016. Robust Institutional Design: What Makes Some Institutions More Adaptable and Resilient to Changes in Their Environment Than Others? In Strüngmann Forum Reports IXX, ed. David S. Wilson, and Alan Kirman, 167–184. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boden, Deirdre, and Don H. Zimmerman. 1991. Structure-in-Action: An Introduction. In Talk & Social Structure: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis, ed. Deirdre Boden, and Don H. Zimmerman, 3–21. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boese, Wade, and Miles Pomper. 2005. Interview with Assistant Secretary of State Stephen Rademaker. http://www.armscontrol.org. Accessed 19 Apr 2005.

  • Bonham, G.Matthew, Christer Jönsson, Stefan Persson, and Michael J. Shapiro. 1987. Cognition and International Negotiation: The Historical Recovery of Discursive Space. Cooperation and Conflict 22 (1): 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, Kenneth. 1973. The Rhetorical Situation. In Communication: Ethical and Moral Issues, ed. Lee Thayer, 263–275. New York: Gordon and Breach.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cabactulan, Libran. 2010. Keynote Address on the Occasion of the Conference ‘From Aspiration to Reality: Nuclear Disarmament after the NPT Review’, 14 September.

  • Christopher, Warren. 1995. Welcoming Remarks to the NPT Review and Extension Conference. New York, 17 April.

  • Cicero, Marcus T. 1948. De finibus bonorum et malorum. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, Katharina. 2011. Locating Norm Diplomacy: Venue Change in International Norm Negotiations. European Journal of International Relations 19 (1): 163–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commission on Global Governance. 1995. Our Global Neighbourhood. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, Andrew, Brian Hocking, and William Maley (eds.). 2008. Global Governance and Diplomacy: Worlds Apart?. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, Robert T. 2007. Pragmatism in the Field of Communication Theory. Communication Theory 17 (2): 125–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, Robert T. 1999. Communication Theory as a Field. Communication Theory 9 (2): 119–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, Neta. 2009. Homo Politicus and Argument (Nearly) All the Way Down: Persuasion in Politics. Perspectives on Politics 7 (1): 103–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crossette, Barbara. 1995. ‘Man in the News’, New York Times, 14 May.

  • De Certeau, Michel. 1980. On the Oppositional Practices of Everyday Life. Social Text 3: 3–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, Karl W. 1952. On Communication Models in the Social Sciences. Public Opinion Quarterly 16 (3): 356–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhanapala, Jayantha. 2013. Multilateral Diplomacy and the NPT: An Insider’s Account. Geneva: United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhanapala, Jayantha. 2010. The Management of NPT Diplomacy. Daedalus 139 (1): 62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dhanapala, Jayantha. 2005. Multilateral Diplomacy and the NPT: An Insider’s Account. Geneva: UNIDIR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duarte, Sergio. 2006. Keeping the NPT Together: A Thankless Job in a Climate of Mistrust. Nonproliferation Review 13 (1): 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esberg, Jane, and Scott D. Sagan. 2012. Negotiating Nonproliferation: Scholarship, Pedagogy, and Nuclear Weapons Policy. Nonproliferation Review 19 (1): 95–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Essis, Essoh. 2005. From Individual State Preferences to Collective Decisions: An Analytical Account of the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference. International Negotiation 10 (3): 513–539.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fathalla, Ahmed. 2005. Statement at the General Debate, NPT Review Conference.

  • Feroukhi, Taous. 2015. Address to the First Committee of the 70th UN General Assembly, 21 October.

  • Fligstein, Neil. 2013. Understanding Stability and Change in Fields. Research in Organizational Behavior 33: 39–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frieden, Jeffry. 2016. The Governance of International Finance. Annual Review of Political Science 19: 33–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilboa, Eyton. 2005. The CNN Effect: The Search for a Communication Theory of International Relations. Political Communication 22 (1): 27–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottemoeller, Rose. 2015. Remarks at the Conclusion of the 2015 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference, New York, 22 May.

  • Hamidon, Ali. 2010. Statement to the First Session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2010 NPT Review Conference, Vienna. http://www.un.org. Accessed 1 May 2010.

  • Hayek, Friedrich A. 1979. Law, Legislation and Liberty. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopmann, P.Terrence. 1995. Two Paradigms of Negotiation: Bargaining and Problem Solving. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 542 (1): 24–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jakobsen, Peter Viggo. 2011. Pushing the Limits of Military Coercion Theory. International Studies Perspectives 12 (2): 153–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennifer, Mitzen. 2015. ‘From Representation to Governing: Diplomacy and the Constitution of International Public Power. In Diplomacy and the Making of World Politics, ed. Ole Jacob Sending, Vincent Pouliot, and Iver B. Neumann, 111–139. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Rebecca. 2013. ‘NPT and Risks to Human Survival: The Inside Story’, openDemocracy, 29 April.

  • Jönsson, Christer. 1990. Communication in International Bargaining. London: Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerbrat-Orecchioini, Catherine. 2004. Introducing Polylogue. Journal of Pragmatics 36 (1): 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerry, John. 2015. Remarks at the 2015 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference, New York, 27 April.

  • Kimball, Daryl G. 2015. Statement to the 25th UN Conference on Disarmament Issues, Hiroshima, 27 August.

  • Kissinger, Henry, Sam Nunn, William Perry, and George Shultz. 2013. ‘Next Steps in Reducing Nuclear Risks’, Wall Street Journal 5.

  • Kooiman, Jan. 2003. Governing as Governance. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kornprobst, Markus, and Martin Senn. 2017. Arguing Deep Ideational Change. Contemporary Politics 23 (1): 100–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kornprobst, Markus, and Martin Senn. 2016a. Introduction: Background Ideas in International Relations. British Journal of Politics and International Relations 18 (2): 273–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kornprobst, Markus, and Martin Senn. 2016b. A Rhetorical Field Theory: Background, Communication, and Change. British Journal of Politics and International Relations 18 (2): 300–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krause, Keith. 2002. Multilateral Diplomacy, Norm Building, and UN Conferences: The Case of Small Arms and Light Weapons. Global Governance 8 (2): 247–263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krebs, Ronald R., and Patrick Thaddeus Jackson. 2017. Twisting Tongues and Twisting Arms: The Power of Political Rhetoric. European Journal of International Relations 13 (1): 35–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kristeva, Julia. 1977. Polylogue. Paris: Seuil.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuus, Merje. 2014. Geopolitics and Expertise: Knowledge and Authority in European Diplomacy. London: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laffey, Mark, and Jutta Weldes. 1997. Beyond Belief: Ideas and Symbolic Technologies in the Study of International Relations. European Journal of International Relations 3 (2): 193–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamaison, Pierre. 1986. From Rules to Strategies: An Interview with Pierre Bourdieu. Cultural Anthropology 1 (1): 110–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambeth, Benjamin S. 1984. The Political Potential of Equivalence. In Strategy and Nuclear Deterrence, ed. Steven E. Miller, 255–272. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leguey-Feilleux, Jean-Robert. 2017. Global Governance Diplomacy: The Critical Role of Diplomacy in Addressing Global Problems. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levitsky, Steven, and María Murillo. 2009. Variation in Institutional Strength. Annual Review of Political Science 12: 115–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, Marc. 2002. Why Engage? China and the Logic of Communicative Engagement. European Journal of International Relations 8 (2): 187–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Majone, Giandomenico. 2014. Rethinking the Union of Europe Post-Crisis: Has Integration Gone Too Far?. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Masters, Dexter, and Katherine Way. 1946/2007. One World or None: A Report to the Public on the Full Meaning of the Atomic Bomb, New York: The New Press.

  • Meyer, Paul. 2009. Saving the NPT: Time to Renew Treaty Commitments. Nonproliferation Review 16 (3): 463–472.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morley, Ian, and Geoffrey Stephenson. 2015. The Social Psychology of Bargaining. Hove: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrow, Raymond A. 1994. Critical Theory and Methodology. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Natalegawa, Marty M. 2010. Statement on Behalf of the NAM States Party to the NPT before the 2010 Review Conference.

  • Neumann, Iver B. 2005. To Be a Diplomat. International Studies Perspectives 6 (1): 72–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Obama, Barack. 2009. Prague Speech. https://www.whitehouse.gov. Accessed 5 Apr 2009.

  • Odell, John. 2009. Breaking Deadlocks in International Institutional Negotiations. The WTO, Seattle, and Doha. International Studies Quarterly 53 (2): 273–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phinnemore, David. 2015. Crisis-ridden, Battered and Bruised: Time to Give up on the EU? Journal of Common Market Studies 53 (S1): 61–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potter, William, Patricia Lewis, Gaukhar Mukhatzhanova, and Miles Pomper. 2010. ‘The 2010 NPT Review Conference: Deconstructing Consensus’, CNS Special Report, 17 June.

  • Pouliot, Vincent. 2016. International Pecking Orders: The Politics and Practice of Multilateral Diplomacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pouliot, Vincent. 2008. The Logic of Practicality: A Theory of Practice of Security Communities. International Organization 62 (2): 257–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, Richard. 1998. Reversing the Gun Sights: Transnational Civil Society Targets Land Mines. International Organization 52 (3): 613–644.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, Linda. 2010. Communication as Changing the Negotiation Game. Journal of Applied Communication Research 38 (4): 325–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, Robert. 1988. Diplomacy and Domestic Politics: The logic of Two-level Games. International Organization 42 (3): 427–460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rademaker, Stephen G. 2005. U.S. Statement at the 2005 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. http://2001-2009.state.gov.

  • Ramsay, Kristopher W. 2011. Cheap Talk Diplomacy, Voluntary Negotiations, and Variable Bargaining Power. International Studies Quarterly 55 (4): 1003–1023.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rauf, Tariq. 2000. Interview with Abdallah Baali. Nonproliferation Review 7 (1): 146–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rauf, Tariq, and Rebecca Johnson. 1995. After the NPT’s Indefinite Extension: The Future of the Global Nonproliferation Regime. Nonproliferation Review 3 (1): 28–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rauf, Tariq, and John Simpson. 1999. The 1999 NPT Prepcom. Nonproliferation Review 6 (2): 118–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Risse, Thomas. 2000. Let’s Argue! Communicative Action in World Politics. International Organization 54 (1): 1–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Root, Hilton L. 2017. Network Assemblage of Regime Stability and Resilience: Comparing Europe and China. Journal of Institutional Economics. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137416000436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenau, James. 1992. Governance, Order, and Change in World Politics. In Governance Without Government: Order and Change in World Politics, ed. James Rosenau, and Ernst-Otto Czempiel, 1–29. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruggie, John G. 1993. Territoriality and Beyond: Problematizing Modernity in International Relations. International Organization 47 (1): 139–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sartori, Anne E. 2002. The Might of the Pen: A Reputational Theory of Communication in International Disputes. International Organization 56 (1): 121–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sauer, Tom, and Joelien Pretorius. 2014. Nuclear Weapons and the Humanitarian Approach. Global Change, Peace & Security 26 (3): 233–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schatz, Edward, and Renan Levine. 2010. Framing, Public Diplomacy, and Anti-Americanism in Central Asia. International Studies Quarterly 54 (3): 855–869.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schelling, Thomas C. 1966. Arms and Influence. New Haven: Yale.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schimmelfennig, Frank. 2001. The Community Trap: Liberal Norms, Rhetorical Action, and the Eastern Enlargement of the European Union. International Organization 55 (1): 47–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, Jessica. 2015. Intuitively Neoliberal? Towards a Critical Understanding of Resilience Governance. European Journal of International Relations 21 (2): 402–426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, Vivien A. 2016. The Roots of Neo-liberal Resilience: Explaining Continuity and Change in Background Ideas in Europe’s Political Economy. British Journal of Politics and International Relations 18 (2): 318–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, Vivien A., and Mark Thatcher. 2014. Why Are Neoliberal Ideas so Resilient in Europe’s Political Economy? Critical Policy Studies 8 (3): 340–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle, John R. 1995. The Construction of Social Reality. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sewell H. William Jr. 2005. Logics of History: Social Theory and Social Transformation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharp, Jeremy. 2015. Egypt: Background and U.S. Relations. Washington: Congress Research Service, 24 July.

  • Simpson, John, and Jenny Nielsen. 2005. The 2005 NPT Review Conference: Mission Impossible? Nonproliferation Review 12 (2): 271–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sipiora, Phillip. 2002. Introduction: The Ancient Concept of Kairos. In Rhetoric and Kairos: Essay in History, Theory, and Praxis, 1–22, ed. Phillip Sipiora, and James S. Baumlin. Albany: SUNY Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinberg, Gerald. 2001. The Impact of the Egyptian-Israeli debate on Arms Control on the Middle East peace Process. In The Dynamics of Middle East Nuclear Proliferation, ed. Steven L. Spiegel, Jennifer D. Kibbe, and Elizabeth G. Matthews, 229–260. Lewiston: Edwin Mellen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiner, Barry H. 2004. Diplomacy and International Theory. Review of International Studies 30 (4): 493–509.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas Jr., Graham. 2002. Disarmament Sketches. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trager, Robert F. 2011. Multidimensional Diplomacy. International Organization 65 (3): 469–506.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tierney, Kathleen. 2012. ‘Disaster Governance: Social. Political, and Economic Dimensions’, Annual Review of Environment and Resources 37: 341–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • ‘Van, Zhang. 2005. Statement of China, General Debate, NPT Review Conference.

  • Wan, Wilfred. 2015. Why the 2015 NPT Review Conference Fell Apart. United Nations University, Centre for Policy Research, 28 May.

  • Watson, Adam. 1982. Diplomacy: The Dialogue Between States. London: Eyre Methuen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welsh, Susan B. 1995. Delegate Perspectives on the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference. Nonproliferation Review 2 (3): 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, Antje. 2014. A Theory of Contestation. Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wimmer, Franz M. 2004. Interkulturelle Philosophie: Eine Einführung [Intercultural Philosophy: An Introduction]. Vienna: Wiener Universitätsverlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wisnumurti, Nugroho. 1995. Verbatim Record of the 19th Meeting, 1995 RevExCon. http://www.un.org.

  • Wildavsky, Aaron. 1987. Doing More and Using Less: Utilisation of Research as a Result of Regime. In Comparative Policy Research: Learning from Experience, ed. Meinolf Dierkes, Hans N. Weiler, and Ariane Berthoin Antal, 56–93. Aldershot: Gower Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, Oran R. 2010. Institutional Dynamics: Resilience, Vulnerability and Adaptation in Environmental and Resource Regimes. Global Environmental Change 20 (3): 378–385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, Oran R. 1999. The Effectiveness of International Environmental Regimes: Causal Connections and Behavioral Mechanisms. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, Oran R. 1997. Global Governance: Drawing Insights From the Environmental Experience. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zartman, I.William, and Guy O. Faure. 2005. The Dynamics of Escalation and Negotiation. In Escalation and Negotiation in International Conflicts, ed. I.William Zartman, and Guy O. Faure, 3–20. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zarif, Mohammed. 2005. Concluding Statement, NPT Review Conference.

  • Zwick, Peter R. 1988. American-Soviet Relations: The Rhetoric and Realism. In Defense Policy in the Reagan Administration, ed. William P. Snyder, and James J. Brown, 83–113. Washington: National Defense University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the anonymous referees, the editors of JIRD, Corneliu Bjola and Costas Constantinou for very helpful feedback on this study. Furthermore, I am deeply indebted to Martin Senn. Our collaborative work has shaped my thinking about background and foreground institutions as well as how to apply it to the nuclear weapons field in a profound manner.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science and International Relations, Vienna School of International Studies, Favoritenstr. 15a, 1040, Vienna, Austria

    Markus Kornprobst

Authors
  1. Markus Kornprobst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Markus Kornprobst.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kornprobst, M. Diplomatic communication and resilient governance: problems of governing nuclear weapons. J Int Relat Dev 23, 164–189 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41268-018-0133-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41268-018-0133-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation