Delegalization of Arms Control-A Democracy Deficit in De Facto Treaties of Peace?

By Perez, Antonio F. | Chicago Journal of International Law, Spring 2003 | Go to article overview

Delegalization of Arms Control-A Democracy Deficit in De Facto Treaties of Peace?


Perez, Antonio F., Chicago Journal of International Law


I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

Delegalization of arms control is now an accomplished fact. In this period of potential dramatic revision of the international order, it is not surprising that the US is seeking increased flexibility in pursuing several strategies, including the full use of military and technological advantages. The motivations behind this include US interests, as well as long run global interests. What may be surprising, however, is the potential risk to our democratic processes from delegalization of arms control-that is to say, the danger posed by reduced use of arms control treaties with built-in processes of transparency and democratic accountability. The potential risk is particularly apparent in those cases where arms control treaties function in effect as treaties of peace, alliance, or neutrality that arguably should be subject to the control of the constitutional treaty makers. Notwithstanding these concerns, this Article argues that on balance the constitutional text, structure, and history compel the conclusion that the democracy deficit risked by delegalization of arms control is adequately attenuated through continuing congressional participation in the arms control process and, in any event, outweighed by the need for a vigorous executive to exercise the role it assumed at the very beginning of this Republic when "regime change" in Europe was also the question of the day.

II. THE FACT OF DELEGALIZATION OF ARMS CONTROL: BOTH MULTILATERAL AND BILATERAL

The premise for this symposium, the trend toward delegalization of arms control, now seems to be undeniable. Delegalization is often understood by political scientists to be a complex phenomenon composed of normative obligations, more or less precisely defined, with delegation of authority to neutral third parties for rule elaboration, interpretation, and enforcement. Normative obligations invoke a compliance pull, and in those cases where normative obligations are more precisely defined, claims of violated expectations can be framed as breaches of those obligations. Delegation of fact-finding or interpretive authority ensures transparency and publicity to multiply the compliance pull of these normative obligations.1 Yet even under this definition, delegalization remains an amorphous concept. With respect to arms control, delegalization of both multilateral and bilateral treaties may be implicated.

It seems clear that the US is less prepared to enter into multilateral arms control treaties and evidences reduced commitment to existing regimes. The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was rejected by the Republican-controlled Senate in 1999.2 The executive branch has walked away from negotiations to add a verification protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention.3 After a spirited domestic and international debate, the executive branch has also withdrawn the United States from the ABM Treaty,4 which the Clinton administration had not so long ago tried to transform into a multilateral obligation either through interpretation or explicit amendment.5

In turn, Russia announced that it would no longer consider itself bound by START II.6 Diminished commitment to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons ("NPT") is manifested in the lifting of nuclear sanctions and acceptance of Pakistani and Indian acquisition of nuclear weapons capabilities.7 However, US policy on the NPT should perhaps be interpreted in light of the need to reforge an alliance with Pakistan as a frontline state in the war against terrorism, rather than as a move toward diminished commitment to nuclear nonproliferation.

The delegalization tendencies of the Bush administration seem to extend not only to multilateral agreements, but to bilateral agreements as well. One might have thought that the mutual gains in cooperative security with our new Russian ally obtained through obligatory, precise, and fully transparent arms control commitments-such as through a detailed new arms control agreement-would not pose the same kinds of concerns as reliance on multilateral institutions, which by definition are broader and more intrusive upon national prerogatives. …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Delegalization of Arms Control-A Democracy Deficit in De Facto Treaties of Peace?
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Author Advanced search

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.