GENERAL AND COMPREHENSIVE DISARMAMENT
THE IDEA of disarmament has been discussed in the separate fields of nuclear weapons, conventional weapons and chemical, biological and radiological weapons. There is an important doctrine according to which the case for any kind of arms control turns to a large extent, if not entirely, upon the case that can be made out for a general and comprehensive disarmament agreement, an agreement which is general in the sense that the limitations and reductions it imposes bind all powers, and comprehensive in the sense that they bind all categories of armament or types of armed power. The history of arms control negotiations includes both attempts to arrive at agreements of this kind (such as the League Disarmament Conference of 1932, and the UN negotiations between 1952 and 1957 and in 1960) and attempts to arrive at agreements which are local or partial. Total disarmament is not necessarily, and has not been usually, the objective of plans for general and comprehensive disarmament. A disarmament agreement which involves all powers and all categories of armed power may allow for the retention of internal security forces, and of agreed kinds and quantities of weapons and forces. General and comprehensive disarmament is usually seen as something embodied in a single grand treaty leading by stages from less to more drastic and radical measures. The greatest exponent of the doctrine of general and comprehensive disarmament is Philip Noel-Baker.1 It has considerable force and internal consistency, and rests upon a body of theory more elaborate and sophisticated than much that has been written about arms control. It is supported by three important arguments.
The doctrine that disarmament, to be effective, must be general and comprehensive, takes as its starting point the proposition that the arms race is general and comprehensive. The present international society is a worldwide one, and is a single____________________