nach oben

Erschienen in:

2020 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

8. Comparing Prototypical and Unorthodox Norm Advocacy

verfasst von : Carmen Wunderlich

Erschienen in: Rogue States as Norm Entrepreneurs

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Departing from the finding that Iran—an alleged “rogue state”—acts as a norm entrepreneur in selected policy fields, this chapter seeks to compare such unorthodox norm advocacy with cases of ideal-type norm entrepreneurship as identified by liberal norm scholars. Therefore, Wunderlich contrasts the peculiarities of Iranian norm entrepreneurship with two contrasting cases: A comparison with the prototypical good international citizen, Sweden, serves to reveal differences with regard to the strategies and means used to promote norms. The comparison with North Korea, another state typically alleged of violating global norms, is intended to allay the suspicion that the concept of norm entrepreneurship can be applied to all kinds of actors. In addition, it helps answer the question under what circumstances resistance to the ruling order might transform into activism or isolationism.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Vorheriges Kapitel Iran as a Norm Entrepreneur

Nächstes Kapitel Conclusion: Revisiting Norm Entrepreneurship

This does not mean, though, that Iran is not a “genuine” norm entrepreneur seeking to construct new norms. Such norm entrepreneurship can be seen in other policy areas, for example President Khatami’s initiative for a “dialogue among civilizations” in 2000 (Bettiza and Dionigi 2014). With his efforts for a “World against Violence and Violent Extremism” (WAVE) in 2013, President Rouhani tried to tie in with Khatami’s norm entrepreneurship.

In 1974, Inga Thorsson was appointed undersecretary of state for disarmament. A few years later in 1982, Maj Britt Theorin was granted the status of disarmament ambassador. In 1991, the post was finally abolished by the Bildt government and transferred to the responsibility of the Foreign Ministry. The liquidation of the post in the 1990s was accompanied by a gradual devaluation of the importance attached to nuclear disarmament. While Sweden continued its commitment to multilateral arms control, the level of activities decreased during the 1990s and shifted toward non-proliferation.

During the Cold War, the members of the Conference on Disarmament formed three groups: the Western Group, the Eastern Group, and the Group of 21 non-aligned states (G21). Until 1995, Sweden—like Iran—was officially a member of the G21. With its accession to the EU, this was no longer possible. Since then, Sweden has been outside any group formation while maintaining close ties to the Western Group and the G21.

The data sample comprised a huge amount of statements uttered by revolutionary leaders and state representatives at various forums throughout the entire period of investigation. Reasons of space, however, allow for a selective reference to statements only.

Sweden’s national export control legislation even goes beyond the NSG guidelines and European legislation (van Dassen 1995: 190). Sweden is one of the few European countries to carry out end-use controls on its nuclear exports. The re-export of exported materials also requires prior government approval, including within the EU (Berkol and Moreau 2009: 15, 20).

In 1991, Hungary joined the group, also known as White Angels. Its members meet informally in the run-up to NPT Review Conferences to coordinate their positions and prepare joint working papers on verification, export control, and the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

Apart from Sweden, members were Argentina, Greece, India, Mexico, and Tanzania. Palme led the group until his assassination in 1986.

From 1976 to 1996, Swedes chaired the group (1976–1982 Dr. Ulf Ericsson; 1981–1996 Dr. Ola Dahlman). The GSE was dissolved in 1996 but continued its activities in Working Group B of the Test Ban Committee of the Disarmament Conference, which Dahlman chaired until 2006. See https://www.ctbto.org/verification-regime/background/interview-ola-dahlmanchairman-ctbto-working-groupon-verification-wgb-1996-2006/dahlman-1/. Accessed 28 August 2015.

In its report “Our Global Neighborhood,” the Commission called on the international community to initiate a program to eliminate all nuclear weapons within ten to fifteen years (Alani 1995: 17). The report is available at http://www.centerforunreform.org/?q=node/243. Accessed 28 April 2017.

Other founding members were Egypt, Brazil, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, and South Africa. Slovenia left the NAC due to American pressure and its accession to NATO.

See the final report “Weapons of Terror - Freeing the World of Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Arms” published in June 2006; https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/wmdcomm.html. Accessed 28 April 2017.

EU membership did change the framework for action, with the result that Sweden had to coordinate its arms control policy with European partners. However, this did not lead to a limited radius of action. On the contrary, membership of the Union has even increased Sweden’s influence in promoting the non-proliferation norm, as with the strategy against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction the EU has adopted a common policy in 2003. The situation is, however, different in the realm of disarmament, where the tripartite division of EU members into NWS, alliance-free non-nuclear weapon states and NATO non-nuclear weapon states has so far prevented an agreement on far-reaching disarmament steps (Müller et al. 2013: 325).

See the press release on the web site of the Swedish Embassy in Vienna: http://www.swedenabroad.com/en-GB/Embassies/Vienna/Current-affairs/News/Sweden-promotes-the-entry-into-force-of-the-CTBT/. Accessed 28 April 2017.

In their “12-point programme for disarmament” (Socialdemokraterna 2010) adopted in 2010, the Social Democrats announce, among other things, their commitment to further reducing nuclear arsenals, reducing the role of nuclear weapons in military doctrines, and initiating consultations with like-minded states within the UN in order to discuss the conditions for a nuclear weapons convention.

The newly elected government immediately reversed some arms control decisions of its predecessors: For example, Sweden declared its re-entry into the so-called de-alerting group, which advocates putting nuclear weapons off high alert (Regeringskansliet 2015).

Email conversation with Alyson Bailes, 2 October 2007.

See also the activity profile prepared by Reaching Critical Will; http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/resources/profiles. Accessed 28 April 2017.

Sweden organized various seminars in 2001 to demonstrate the reliability of the CTBT verification system (Lindh 2001). It is also active in nuclear safety measures and supports the successor states of the Soviet Union in particular through practical measures within the IAEA, the G8 Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction or through disarmament assistance for chemical and nuclear weapons stocks (Blom 2001; van Dassen and Wetter 2006: 256–57).

Inga Thorsson chaired the NPT RevCon in 1975, in 1985 (Rolf Ekéus), and in 1990 (Carl-Magnus Hyltenius) Swedes chaired the Drafting Committee. In 2002, Henrik Salander chaired the first meeting of the Preparatory Committee for the 2005 Review Conference, at which Elisabeth Borsiin-Bonnier took over the chairmanship of Main Committee III.

Swedish delegates were often involved as friends of the chair during the CTBT negotiations (1994 Bertil Roth, 1995 and 1996 Richard Ekwall) or, based on their national expertise, headed the CTBTO GSE or Working Group B dealing with questions of verification.

So far, two Swedes have held the post of IAEA Director-General: Sigvard Eklund from 1961 to 1981 and Hans Blix from 1981 to 1997. The latter also headed the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), which was responsible for monitoring Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.

The establishment of SIPRI in 1966 served similar aims: As a non-governmental institution, SIPRI makes a major contribution to the international disarmament debate through its comprehensive research program and the publication of numerous publications (e.g., the SIPRI Yearbook, which provides an overview of the state of international disarmament).

At the beginning of the 1990s, the number of critical comments decreased for a short time, but increased again over the years. The brief decline can be explained by the fact that Sweden did not want to nip progress in the heyday of arms control after the end of the Cold War with ongoing criticism. See interviews with Jan Prawitz, 24 October 2007; Maj Britt Theorin, 25 November 2007; Hans Blix, 11 September 2010, and Rolf Ekéus 13 September 2010.

Sweden’s accession to the EU did not, for example, prevent Prime Minister Carlsson from strongly condemning the French nuclear tests (van Dassen and Wetter 2006: 259).

For example during the CTBT negotiations, Swedish disarmament ambassador Theorin called on the other parties to show flexibility and to deviate from maximum demands: “Sweden has a clear position on what should ideally be the content of a mandate of an ad hoc committee. Nevertheless, in order to allow for the urgently needed multilateral consideration to start, my delegation is ready to go along with any mandate that is acceptable to other delegations” (Theorin 1988).

See http://armstrade.sipri.org/armstrade/html/export_toplist.php. Accessed 28 April 2017.

So the former Head of the Department for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation, Dr. Christer Ahlström, in a background conversation, 7 September 2010, Stockholm.

The chapter also covered the arms control policies of Egypt, Iran, and South Africa. The section on the DPRK was written by Hans-Joachim Schmidt in collaboration with Andrea Hellmann. Yet, they arrive at a different assessment of the DPRK’s status as a norm entrepreneur.

The decision-making process is in the hands of a small circle of party officials, the army, and central intelligence officials. The “Supreme Leader” is considered to be the highest authority. Especially since the transfer of power to Kim Jong-Un, it is assumed that high-ranking military and family members are significantly involved in important decisions (Niksch 2007). See Park (2010); Gause (2013) on the political decision-making process, particularly with regard to arms control.

On the history of the North Korean nuclear program, see among many Mansourov (1995); Habib (2011); Suk (2011).

Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, 1992; http://www.nti.org/media/pdfs/aptkoreanuc.pdf. Accessed 28 April 2017.

Article X of the NPT states that each state party has the right to withdraw from the treaty if “extraordinary circumstances” make it impossible for it to remain in the treaty regime. In such a case, however, the respective member states are obliged to announce its intention to resign three months in advance. North Korea “suspended” the withdrawal decision one day before the deadline.

Whether the withdrawal is legally binding is subject to controversy. North Korea referred to the suspended declaration of withdrawal of 1993, justifying its action within the necessary three-month period. In addition, North Korea had informed the UN Secretary-General but not the treaty community of its intention to withdraw. Some states therefore do not recognize the withdrawal (Bunn and Timerbaev 2005; Hilpert and Meier 2013: 5).

From the outset, US treatment of North Korea differed from the predominantly confrontational punitive measures alleged “rogue states” were subjected to. Instead of isolation and containment, a strategy of “limited engagement by necessity” was used (Litwak 2000: 198).

Surprisingly, there are few references to Article IV in North Korean statements, although the country has a civilian nuclear program and has complained the lack of cooperation. To be sure, there are references to the need for technological support and to the view that the requirement for cooperation constitutes a sovereign right of non-nuclear weapon states which must not be restricted by unfounded and “fabricated” accusations (e.g., Choe 2009). Yet North Korea’s argumentation does not go beyond references to its own nuclear program, a missionary instinct is completely missing.

North Korea goes even further in its argumentation by framing the development of its own nuclear capabilities as a common good: “[O]ur deterrent is no danger anyway, but rather contributes to maintaining peace and security on the Korean peninsula and in its surroundings” (Hong 2007).

Instead, North Korean delegates claim that the nuclear weapons program does not serve as a threat, but “only” as a deterrent and to refrain from the first use of nuclear weapons (e.g., DPRK 2007).

North Korea is suspected of having repeatedly violated Article III(2) of the NPT, which prohibits the transfer of nuclear materials to countries that have not concluded safeguards agreements with the IAEA. These include the export of nuclear know-how and related materials to countries such as Iran and Syria (Albright 2013; or https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/northkoreaprofile. Accessed 28 April 2017). At the same time, North Korea claims to comply with the treaty. Pollack quotes a statement by the North Korean Foreign Ministry in October 2009, shortly after the second nuclear test: “We will always sincerely implement our international commitment in the field of nuclear non-proliferation as a responsible nuclear[weapons] state”; quoted after Pollack (2009: 269).

In the early years of its NAM membership (admission in 1975), North Korea tried to play an active role. Shim concludes “that it had the capacity to play an active and effective role in international diplomacy” (Shim 2014: 4). Nevertheless, already back then it was suspected to use the NAM context merely as platform rather than a forum of like-minded states (Krishnan 1981).

This was confirmed to me by various IAEA staff and arms control officials from various states during my interviews in Vienna in spring 2012.

See http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/resources/profiles#. Accessed 28 April 2017.

The establishment of a nuclear weapons capacity could be interpreted as a reaction to unjustified intervention in national sovereignty and would thus come close to the concept of norm subsidiarity. However, no such argumentation could be found in the analyzed North Korean speeches.

Agius, C. (2006). The social construction of Swedish neutrality: Challenges to Swedish identity and sovereignty. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Agrell, W. (1984). The bomb that never was: The rise and fall of the Swedish nuclear weapons programme. In N. Gleditsch & O. Njølstad (Eds.), Arms races. Technological and political dynamics, (pp. 154–174). London: Sage Publications.

Ahlin, U. (2010). Interpellationsdebat: Sveriges agerande i frågan om nedrustning och icke-spridning, interpellation 2009/10:465 av Urban Ahlin (S). http://www.riksdagen.se/sv/Debatter–beslut/Interpellationsdebatter1/Debatt/?did=GX10465&doctype=ip. Accessed 28 August 2015.

Alani, B. (1995). Sverige och de globala kärnvapenfrågorna. NPT-konferensen: resultat och konsekvenser (UD informerar 1995:2). Stockholm: Utrikesdepartementet.

Albright, D. (2013). A dangerous nexus: Preventing Iran-Syria-North Korea Nuclear and Missile Proliferation. Prepared testimony of David Albright, President, Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa and Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, April 11. http://isis-online.org/uploads/conferences/documents/Testimony_House_Subcommittees_11April2013_final.pdf. Accessed April 28, 2017.

Andrén, N. (1996). Maktbalans och alliansfrihet. Svensk utrikespolitik under 1900-tale. Stockholm: Norstedts Juridik.

BBC. (2002, February 2). Bush’s “evil acis” comment stirs critics. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1796034.stm. Accessed April 28, 2017.

Bechtol, B. (2007). Red Rogue: The Persistent challenge of North Korea. Washington, DC: Potomac Books.

Bechtol, B. (2009). Creating instability in dangerous global regions: North Korean proliferation and support to terrorism in the Middle East and South Asia. Comparative Strategy, 28(2), 99–115.CrossRef

Becker-Jakob, U., Hofmann, G., Müller, H., & Wunderlich, C. (2013). Good international citizens: Canada, Germany and Sweden. In H. Müller & C. Wunderlich (Eds.), Norm dynamics in multilateral arms control, interests, conflicts, and justice (pp. 207–245). Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.

Bergenäs, J. (2010). The rise of a White Knight State: Sweden’s nonproliferation and disarmament history. Resource Document. NTI Articles, 10.02.2010. http://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/swedens-nonproliferation-history/. Accessed 28 April 217.

Bergman, A. (2007). Co-constitution of domestic and international welfare obligations: The case of Sweden’s Social Democratically inspired internationalism. Cooperation and Conflict, 41(1), 73–99.CrossRef

Berkol, I., & Moreau, V. (2009). Post-export controls on arms transfers: Delivery verification and end-use monitoring. Resource Document. GRIP, 2009/4. http://archive.grip.org/en/siteweb/dev_e17906a2.asp.html. Accessed 28 April 2017.

Bettiza, G., & Dionigi, F. (2014). Beyond constructivism’s liberal bias: Islamic norm entrepreneurs in a post-secular world society. EUI Working Paper MWP 2014/10. http://cadmus.eui.eu/bitstream/handle/1814/31692/MWP_WP_Bettiza_Dionigi_2014_10.pdf?sequence=1. Accessed 28 April 2017.

Bildt, C. (2010, May 3). Statement to the 2010 NPT RevCon, New York.

Bildt, C., & Sikorski R. (2010, February 1). Next, the Tactical Nukes. New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/opinion/02iht-edbildt.html?_r=0. Accessed 28 August 2015.

Birnbaum, K. (1965). Sweden’s nuclear policy. International Journal, 20(3), 297–311.CrossRef

Bjereld, U., Johansson, A., & Molin, K. (2008). Sveriges säkerhet och världens fred. Svensk utrikespolitik under kalla kriget. Stockholm: Santérus Förlag.

Björkdahl, A. (2002). From idea to norm: Promoting conflict prevention. Lund: Lund University.

Björkdahl, A. (2008). Norm advocacy: A small state strategy to influence the EU. Journal of European Public Policy, 15(1), 135–154.CrossRef

Björkdahl, A. (2013). Ideas and norms in Swedish peace policy. Swiss Political Science Review, 19(3), 322–337.CrossRef

Bleiker, R. (2003). A Rogue is a Rogue is a Rogue: US foreign policy and the Korean nuclear crisis. International Affairs, 79(4), 719–737.CrossRef

Blom, F. (2001). Non-proliferation and disarmament assistance to Russia, Swedish peace and arbitration society. Stockholm.

Bodström, L. (1985, August 28). Statement to the 1985 NPT RevCon, NPT/CONF.III/SR.2, Geneva.

Brodin, K. (2016). The Undén Proposal. Cooperation and Conflict, 1(4), 18–29.CrossRef

Brysk, A. (2009). Global good Samaritans: Human Rights as foreign policy. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Bunn, G. (1992). Arms control by committee: Managing negotiations with the Russians. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Bunn, G., & Timerbaev, R. (2005). The right to withdraw from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT): The views of two NPT negotiators. Yaderny Kontrol, 10(1–2), 20–29.

Buszynski, L. (2013). Negotiating with North Korea. The six party talks and the nuclear issue. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRef

Butters, A. (2010). Ahmadinejad’s answer to Obama’s nuclear summit. Resource Document. Time, 19 April 2010. http://content.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1982962,00.html. Accessed 28 April 2017.

Choe, I. Y. (2007, October 31). Statement to the 62nd Session of the UNGA First Committee, A/C.1/62/PV.23, New York.

Choe, I. Y. (2009, October 27). Statement to the 64th Session of the UNGA First Committee, A/C.1/64/PV.19, New York.

Crisis Group. (2009). North Korea's Chemical and Biological Weapons Programs. International Crisis Group ICG, Asia Report 167, 26, Brüssels.

Dahl, A. (2002). Activist Sweden: The last defender of non-alignment. In A. Dahl & N. Hillmer (Eds.), Activism and (Non)alignment. The relationship between foreign policy and security doctrine (pp. 139–150). Stockholm: Utrikespolitiska institutet.

Davenport, K. (2013, February 28). North Korea conducts nuclear test. https://wwwarmscontrol.org/act/2013_03/North-Conducts-Nuclear-Test. Accessed 28 August 2015.

DPRK. (1986, June 30). Statement of the Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, S/18191, New York.

DPRK. (1987, July 15). Statement by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the DPRK, S/18981, New York.

DPRK. (1989, September 13). Statement by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the DPRK, S/20964, New York.

DPRK. (1990a, August 31). Proposal by the DPRK Concerning the Safeguards Agreement and an Agreement to Assure the DPRK against the Use of the Threat of Use of Nuclear Weapon, NPT/CONF.IV/33, New York.

DPRK. (1990b, August 30). Suggested Elements to be Included in the Final Declaration, NPT/CONF.4/MC.I/WP.3, Geneva.

DPRK. (1995, May 9). Letter Addressed to the President of the 1995 RevCon, NPT/CONF.1995/30, New York.

DPRK. (2007, January 24). Right of reply by the Democratic people’s Republic of Korea at the CD, Geneva. http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Disarmament-fora/cd/2007/statements/1session/Jan24_DPRK.pdf. Accessed 28 August 2015.

DPRK. (2010, March 2). Statement to the CD, Geneva, Unofficial Transcript. http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Disarmament-fora/cd/2010/statements/part1/2Mar_ROK.pdf. Accessed 28 August 2015.

DPRK., et al. (1995, May 5). Extension of the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Submitted together with Indonesia, Iran, Jordan Malaysia, Mali, Myanmar, Nigeria, Papua New Guinea, Thailand and Zimbabwe: Draft Decision, NPT/CONF.1995/L.3, New York.

Ekwall, R. (1995a, April 25). Statement to the 1995 NPT RevoCon, Main Committee I, NPT/CONF.1995/MC.1/SR.2, New York.

Ekwall, R. (1995b, May 1). Statement to the 1995 NPT RevCon, Main Committee I, NPT/CONF.1995/MC.1/SR.6, New York.

El Baradei, M. (2011). The age of deception: Nuclear diplomacy in treacherous times. New York: Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt and Co.

Eliasson, J. (1995, April 20). Statement to the 1995 RevCon, NPT/CONF.1995/SR.7, New York.

EU Council. (2003, December 12). Strategy against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Adopted by the European Council, Brüssel. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=URISERV:l33234. Accessed 28 August 2015.

Finland, & Sweden. (2002, April 11). Statement by H.E. Mr. Markku Reimaa on behalf of Finland and Sweden on non-strategic nuclear weapons at the Preparatory Committee for the 2005 NPT RevCon, New York.

Finnemore, M., & Sikkink, K. (1998). International norm dynamics and political change. International Organization, 52(4), 887–917.CrossRef

Freivalds, L. (2004, March 16). Statement to the CD, CD/PV.951, Geneva.

Freivalds, L. (2005, May 3). Statement to the 7th NPT RevCon, New York.

French, P. (2005). North Korea: The paranoid Peninsula. A modern history. London: Zed Books.

Garcia, D. (2006). Small arms and security: New emerging international norms. London/New York.

Garris, J. (1973). Sweden’s debate on the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Cooperation and Conflict, 8(4), 189–208.CrossRef

Gause, K. (2013). North Korean leadership dynamics and decision-making under Kim Jong-Un: A first year assessment. CNA Analysis & Solutions.

Geldenhuys, D. (2004). Deviant conduct in world politics. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRef

Gierow, K. (1990). Sverige och icke-spridningen av kärnvapen. UD informerar 1990:2. Stockholm: Utrikesdepartementet.

Goldmann, K. (2015). Samsyn och kompromissvilja nickel till framgång i Tunisien. Resource Document. UI-bloggen, Utrikespolitiska Institutet. http://www.ui.se/blog/uibloggen/2015/9/15/samsyn-och-kompromissvilja-nyckel-till-framgang-i-tunisien.aspx. Accessed 28 August 2015.

Habib, B. (2011). North Korea’s nuclear weapons program and the maintenance of the Songun system. The Pacific Review, 24(1), 43–64.CrossRef

Han, C. O. (1994, June 30). Statement to the CD, CD/PV/684, Geneva.

Han, C. O. (1996, March 21). Statement to the CD, CD/PV.731, Geneva.

Harrison, S. (2005). Did North Korea cheat. Foreign Affairs, 84(1), 99–110.CrossRef

Hecker, S. (2010) A return trip to North Korea’s Yongbyon nuclear complex. Reource Document. CISAC Report, 20 November 2010. http://people.duke.edu/~myhan/kaf1007.pdf. Accessed 28 April 2017.

Henriksen, T. (2012). America and the Rogue states. St. New York, NY: Martin’s Press.CrossRef

Hilpert, H., & Meier, O. (2013). Charting a new course on North Korea’s nuclear programme? The options and the non-proliferation treaty. SWP Comments 19, June 2013. https://www.swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/comments/2013C19_hlp_mro.pdf. Accessed 28 April 2017.

Holmström, M. (2006). Palme försökte aktiv säljas Boforskanoner. Resource Document. Svenska Dagbladet, 23.4.2006. http://www.svd.se/palme-forsokte-aktivt-salja-boforskanoner. Accessed 28 April 2017.

Hong, J. R. (2007, October 9). Statement to the 62nd Session of the UNGA First Committee, A/C.1/62/PV.3, New York.

Huntley, W. (2006). Rebels without a cause. North Korea, Iran and the NPT. International Affairs, 82(4), 723–742.CrossRef

Ingebritsen, C. (2002). Norm entrepreneurs: Scandinavia’s role in world politics. Cooperation and Conflict, 37(1), 11–23.CrossRef

Johnson, R. (1995). Indefinite extension of the non-proliferation treaty: Risks and reckonings. Acronym Report No. 7. http://www.acronym.org.uk/old/archive/acrorep/acro7.htm. Accessed 28.

Johnson, R. (2009). Unfinished business. The negotiation of the CTBT and the end of nuclear testing. UNIDIR, Geneva.

Jon, Y.-R. (2003, November 6). Statement to the 46th Session of the UNGA First Committee, A/C.1/58/PV.23, New York.

Jonter, T. (2001). Sweden and the bomb: The Swedish plans to acquire nuclear weapons, 1945–1972. SKI Report, 01(33), Stockholm.

Jonter, T. (2003). Making a historical survey of a State’s nuclear ambitions IAEA task ID: SWE C 01333, Impact of historical development of a state’s national nuclear non-proliferation policy on additional protocol. SKI Report 2003. Stockholm.

Kang, M. C. (2008, October 31). Statement to the 63rd Session of the UNGA First Committee, A/C.1/63/PV.22, New York.

KCNA. (2006, October 3). North Korean Foreign Ministry clarifies stand on new measure to bolster war deterrent. Korean News KCNA. http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2006/200610/news10/04.htm#1. Accessed 28 August 2015.

Kim, C. G. (1990, October 20). Statement to the 46th Session of the UNGA First Committee, A/C.1/46/PV.20, New York.

Kim, C. G. (1995, January 27). Statement to the Preparatory Committee of the 1995 NPT RevCon, NPT/CONF.1995/PC.IV/SR.8, Geneva.

Kim, S. Y. (1998, October 15). Statement to the 53rd Session of the UNGA First Committee, A/C.1/53/ PV.7, New York.

Kim, J. (2014). The North Korean nuclear weapons crisis. The nuclear taboo revisited?. London/ New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRef

Klare, M. (1995). Rogue states and nuclear outlaws: America’s search for a new foreign policy. New York, NY: Hill and Wang.

Krishnan, R. R. (1981). North Korea and the Non-Aligned Movement. International Studies, 20(1–2), 299–313.CrossRef

Lamnek, S. (2001 [1979]). Theorien abweichenden Verhaltens, 7. Aufl., München: Wilhelm Fink Verlg.

Li, H. C. (1998, October 16). Statement to the 53rd Session of the UNGA First Committee, A/C.1/53/PV.7, New York.

Lindh, A. (2000, April 25). Statement to the 6th NPT RevCon, New York.

Lindh, A. (2001, November 11). Statement at the Conference on Facilitating the Entry into Force of the CTBT, New York.

Litwak, R. (2000). Rogue states and U.S. foreign policy: Containment after the Cold War. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press with Johns Hopkins University Press.

Litwak, R. (2012). Outlier states: American strategies to change, contain, or engage regimes. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press with Johns Hopkins University Press.

Lomas, P. (1991). Sweden. In H. Müller (Ed.), How Western European nuclear policy is made: Deciding the atom (pp. 190–208). Houndmills: MacMillan.CrossRef

Mallin, M. (1994). The June, 1993 Swedish draft comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty: Implications and issues for negotiations. McLean/ VA: Science Applications International.

Manga, E. (2010). Swedish arms export. From National interest to global Utopia. New Routes, 15(3), 3–6.

Mansourov, A. (1995). The origins, evolution, and current politics of the North Korean nuclear program. The Nonproliferation Review, 2(3), 25–38.CrossRef

Mansourov, A. (2003). The Hermit Mouse Roars: North Korea’s Response to U.S. Security Policies, Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies, March 2003.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs Iran. (2010, October 4). Spokesman Terms Iran "Forerunner of Campaign against N. Armaments". Press statement. http://zan1400.blogfa.com/post-166.aspx. Accessed April 28, 2017.

Müller (2013). Conclusion: Agency is central. In H. Müller, & C. Wunderlich (Eds.), Norm dynamics in multilateral arms control, interests, conflicts, and justice (pp. 337–366). Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.

Müller, H., Below, A., & Wisotzki, S. (2013). Beyond the state: Nongovernmental organizations, the European Union, and the United Nations. In H. Müller & C. Wunderlich (Eds.), Norm dynamics in multilateral arms control, interests, conflicts, and justice (pp. 296–336). Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.

Müller, H., Fischer, D., & Kötter, W. (1994). Nuclear non-proliferation and global order. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Müller, H., Franceschini, G., Melamud, A., Müller, D., Péczeli, & Schaper, A. (2015). A nuclear weapon-free zone in Europe: Concept–Problems–Chances. PRIF Resource Document. http://www.bmeia.gv.at/fileadmin/user_upload/Zentrale/Aussenpolitik/Abruestung/NWFZE_Finalversion.pdf. Accessed 28 April 2017.

Myrdal, A. (1977). The game of disarmament: How the United States and Russia run the arms race. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

NAC. (1998, June 9). Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world: The need for a new agenda. Joint Declaration by the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, Slovenia, South Africa and Sweden, A/53/138.

Niksch, L. (2007, January 3). North Korea’s nuclear weapons development and diplomacy (CRS Report for Congress) Washington, DC.

Nilsson, A.-S. (1991). Den moraliska stormakten: En studie av socialdemokratins internationella activism. Stockholm: Timbro.

Olsson, T., & Åkerman, M. (2012). FOI stod bakom bulvanen. Resource Document. SvD Näringsliv, 7.3.2012. http://www.svd.se/foi-stod-bakom-bulvanen_6908035; 28 April 2017.

Pak, G. Y. (1994, October 21). Statement to the 49th Session of the UNGA First Committee, A/C.1/49/PV.8, New York.

Pak, G. Y. (2004, October 12). Statement to the 59th Session of the UNGA First Committee, A/C.1/59/PV.7, New York.

Park, H. (2006). The rationales behind North Korean foreign policy. In L. Hagström & M. Söderberg (Eds.), North Korea policy: Japan and the great powers (pp. 38–52). London: Routledge.

Park, P. (2010). The future of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Journal of Contemporary Asia, 31(1), 104–120.CrossRef

Pirseyedi, B. (2013). Arms control and Iranian foreign policy: Diplomacy of discontent. New York, NY: Routledge.

Pollack, J. (2009). North Korea’s nuclear weapons program to 2015. In N. Busch & D. Joyner (Eds.), Combating weapons of mass destruction: The future of international nonproliferation policy (pp. 263–280). Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.

Prawitz, J. (1995). From nuclear-option to non-nuclear promotion: The Sweden case. Research Report no 20. Stockholm: Swedish Institute of International Affairs.

Prawitz, J. (2003). Arms controller Alva Myrdal: Word power for world politics. In P. Wallensteen (Ed.), Alva Myrdal in international affairs (pp. 55–68). Uppsala: Uppsala Publishing House.

Rajiv, S. (2010). Iran and the NPT RevCon 2010. Resource Document. IDSA Comment. http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/IranandtheNPTRevCon2010_sscrajiv_040510. Accessed 28 April 2017.

Regeringskansliet (2015, April 27). Från svensk sida är vi måna um att kunna bidra konkret, här och nu. Sydsvenskan.http://www.regeringen.se/debattartiklar/2015/04/fran-svensk-sida-ar-vi-mana-om-att-kunna-bidra-konkret-har-och-nu/. Accessed 28 August 2015.

Ri, T. (1990, November 30). Statement to the 1990 NPT RevCon, NPT/CONF.IV/SR.6, Geneva.

Ri, T. (1993, March 23). Statement to the CD, CD/PV.647, Geneva.

Ri, T. (1995, June 29). Statement to the CD, CD/PV.710, Geneva.

Ri, T. (1999, June 24). Statement to the CD, CD/PV.829, Geneva.

Ri, J. G.(2007, October 31). Statement to the 62nd Session of the UNGA First Committee, A/C.1/62/PV.23, New York.

Rublee, M. (2008). Taking Stock of the nuclear nonproliferation regime: Using social psychology to understand regime effectiveness. International Studies Review, 10(3), 420–450.CrossRef

Rublee, M. (2009). Nonproliferation norms: Why states choose nuclear restraint. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.

Schmalberger, T. (1991). In pursuit of a nuclear test Ban treaty: A guide to the debate in the conference on disarmament. New York, NY: UNIDIR.

Schmidt, H.-J. (2012). Nordkorea als Nuklearmacht—Chancen der Kontrolle. HSFK Report 1/2012. Frankfurt a. M.

Schmittchen, D. (2006). “Rogue States”—”Schurkenstaaten”. Ein stringentes US-Konzept im Kampf gegen Terrorismus und Proliferation von ABC-Waffen? Resource document. Forschungsgruppe Sicherheitspolitik. Berlin.

Senn, M. (2009). Wolves in the woods: The Rogue state concept from a constructivist perspective. Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRef

Shim, D. (2014). Visual politics and North Korea: Seeing is believing. New York, NY: Routledge.

Sigal, L. (1998). Disarming strangers: Nuclear diplomacy with North Korea. Princeton/NY: Princeton University Press.

So, S. P. (2003). February 13). Statement to the CD. CD/PV.919, Geneva:

So, S. P. (2011, March 10). Statement to the UN and Other International Organizations at the Conference on Disarmament, Geneva.

Socialdemokraterna. (2010). Socialdemokraternas tolvpuntksprogram för nedrustning. En svensk offensiv mot massförstörelsevapen och för nedrustning, Stockholm. http://www.socialdemokraterna.se/upload/Internationellt/Dokument/nedrustningsprogram.pdf. Accessed 28 August 2015.

Söderlund, A. (2013, June 26). Carl Bildt överraskade—ringde "Ring P1". Aftonbladet. http://aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article16728776.ab?service=print. Accessed April 28, 2017.

Suk, A. (2011). What is the root cause of the North Korean nuclear program? Asian Affairs. An American Review, 38(4), 175–187.CrossRef

Sundelius, B. (2001). The makers of Swedish security policy. In B. Huldt, T. Tiilikainen, T. Vaahtoranta, & A. Rågård-Helkama (Eds.), Finnish and Swedish security: Comparing national policies (pp. 232–258). Helsinki/Stockholm: Swedish National Defence College and the Programme on the Northern Dimension of the CFSP.

Svenska Freds. (2012). Sweden is planning to help Saudi Arabia build an arms factors. Resource Document. http://www.svenskafreds.se/sweden-is-planning-to-help-saudi-arabia-build-an-arms-factory. Accessed 28 April 2017.

Svensson, F. (2013). Sverige lämnar nedrustningssamarbete. Resource Document. OmVärlden, 24.4.2013. http://www.omvarlden.se/varlden/Briefing/Sverige-lamnar-nedrustningssamarbete/. Accessed 28 April 2017.

Sweden. (1965, September 2). Memorandum on International Cooperation for the Detection of Underground Nuclear Explosions, ENDC/154, Geneva.

Sweden. (1983, June 14). Draft Treaty Banning any Nuclear Weapon Test Explosion in Any Environment, Submitted to the CD, CD/381, Geneva.

Sweden. (1991, July 31). Text of a Draft Comprehensive Test-Ban Treaty and its annexed Protocols, Submitted to the CD, CD/1089, Geneva.

Sweden. (1993, December 6). Text of a Draft Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and its Annexed Draft Protocol, Submitted to the CD, CD/1232, Geneva.

Sweden. (1995, n. d.). Proposed language on the Review of Article VI and the Eighth to Twelfth Preambular Paragraphs, NPT/CONF.1995/MC.I/CRP.14, New York.

Sweden. (2010, March 19). Multilateral approaches to the nuclear fuel cycle. Working paper, NPT/CONF.2010/WP.7, New York.

Sweden et al. (1985, July 15). Letter dated 15 July 1985 addressed to the provisional secretary-general of the Third NPT RevCon. Together with Denmark, Finland, Island and Norway, NPT/CONF.III/16, New York.

Sweden et al. (1995, April 21). Article III—Safeguards. Working Paper. Together with Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and Norway. NPT/CONF.1995/MC.II/WP.2, New York.

Sweden et al. (2000, April 27). Export controls. Working paper. Together with Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and Norway, NPT/CONF.2000/MC.II/WP.4, New York.

Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (2014, March 13). Strategic Export Control in 2013—Military Equipment and Dual-Use Items, Government Communication 2013/14:114. Stockholm. http://www.government.se/legal-documents/2014/01/comm.-201314114/. Accessed April 28, 2017.

Theorin, M. B. (1985, February 5). Statement to the CD, Geneva.

Theorin, M. B. (1988, February 2). Statement to the CD, Geneva.

Theorin, M. B. (1991, July 25). Statement to the CD, Geneva.

Theorin, M. (2003). Alva Myrdal and the Peace Movement. In P. Wallensteen (Ed.), Alva Myrdal in international affairs (pp. 43–54). Uppsala: Uppsala Publishing House.

Thränert, O. (2003). Der Iran und die Verbreitung von ABC-Waffen. Berlin: SWP-Studie.

Thunborg, A. (2005). Swedish nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament policy and the European Union. Foreign Policy in Dialogue, 17, 31–35.

Tolf, A. (2013). Sverige och arbetet för kärnvapennedrustning—självständig aktör eller passiv medsångare i EU: skör? Stockholm: Svenska läkare mot kärnvapen, No. 123, March–April 2013.

UN. (1983, April 8). Report of the Independent Commission on Disarmament, A/CN.10/38, New York.

van Dassen, L. (1995). Sweden. In H. Müller (Ed.), Nuclear export controls in Europe (pp. 181–206). Brüssel: European Interuniversity Press.

van Dassen, L. (1996). Sweden. In H. Müller (Ed.), European non-proliferation policy 1993–1995 (pp. 265–279). Brüssel: European Interuniversity Press.

van Dassen, L. (1998). Sweden and the making of nuclear non-proliferation: From indecision to assertiveness. SKI Report 98(16). Stockholm: Norstedts Tryckeri AB.

van Dassen, L., & Wetter, A. (2006). Nordic nuclear non-proliferation policies: Different traditions and common objectives. In A. J. K. Bailes, G. Herolf. & B. Sundelius (Eds.), The Nordic countries and the European security and defence policy (pp. 252–266), Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Waldenström, L. (2005). North Korea’s juche ideology and its implications on Pyongyang’s relations with Washington 1994–2004. A North Korean perspective. Umea: Swedish Defense Research Agency.

Wallin, L. (1991). Sweden. In R. Cowen Karp (Ed.), Security with nuclear weapons? Different perspectives on national security (pp. 360–381). New York: Oxford University Press.

Wunderlich, C., Hellmann, A., Müller, D., Reuter, J., & Schmidt, H-J. (2013). Non-aligned Reformers and Revolutionaries: Egypt, South Africa, Iran, and North Korea. In H. Müller & C. Wunderlich, 246–295.

Wunderlich, A. (2014). A “rogue” gone norm entrepreneurial? Iran within the nuclear nonproliferation regime. In W. Wagner, W. Werner, & M. Onderco (Eds.), Deviance in international relations: “Rogue states” and international security (pp. 83–104). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRef

Wunderlich, C. (2008). Vom Weltgewissen zum Mitläufer ohne Profil? Schwedens wertorientierte Außenpolitik im Anpassungsdruck an europäische Positionen – Nukleare Rüstungskontrollpolitik 1985–2005. Wissenschaftliche Hausarbeit für das Lehramt an Gymnasien eingereicht dem Amt für Lehrerbildung. Frankfurt a. M. Unpublished Manuscript.

Wunderlich, C. (2013). Theoretical approaches in the study of norms. In H. Müller & C. Wunderlich (Eds.), Norm dynamics in multilateral arms control, interests, conflicts, and justice (pp. 20–47). Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.

Youde, J., & Slagter, T. (2013). Creating “good international citizens”, middle powers and domestic political institutions. Seton Hall Journal of Diplomacy and International Relations, 14(2), 123–133.

Titel: Comparing Prototypical and Unorthodox Norm Advocacy
verfasst von: Carmen Wunderlich
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Buch: Rogue States as Norm Entrepreneurs
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-27989-9

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-27990-5

Copyright-Jahr: 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27990-5_8