Solving the nuclear dilemma: Is a world state necessary?

The unique dangers raised by the possibility of nuclear warfare have long prompted intensive debates about what political action is needed to avoid it. While most scholars contend that it is possible to prevent a nuclear war without fundamental political change, others argue that a substantial solut...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of international political theory Vol. 15; no. 3; pp. 349 - 366
Main Author Craig, Campbell
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published London, England SAGE Publications 01.10.2019
Sage Publications Ltd
Subjects
Arms control & disarmament
Nuclear war
Political action
Political change
Radicalism
nuclear revolution
unipolarity
Arms control
world state
Pax Americana
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:The unique dangers raised by the possibility of nuclear warfare have long prompted intensive debates about what political action is needed to avoid it. While most scholars contend that it is possible to prevent a nuclear war without fundamental political change, others argue that a substantial solution to the problem demands the abolition of the existing interstate system. Two such ‘radical’ positions are the ‘Weberian’ school, which insists that an authoritative world state is necessary, and Daniel Deudney’s alternative, a liberal order based upon republican traditions of mutual restraint, internal power balancing and powerful arms control institutions. In this essay, I argue, using both historical and theoretical analysis, that the regime Deudney envisions would amount to the establishment of a Pax Americana. This would be rejected by illiberal nuclear powers and therefore fail to solve the nuclear problem.
ISSN:1755-0882
1755-1722
DOI:10.1177/1755088218795981