In 2005, India and the United States announced a nuclear "deal" that would seek to clarify India's ambiguous status in the nuclear order. The sole superpower appeared to be recognizing India's status as a nuclear-armed state by opening up the possibility of nuclear cooperation. This announcement represented the fruit of many years of careful Indian diplomacy aimed at establishing its identity as a responsible possessor of nuclear weapons and forging a closer alliance with the US. This article provides a concise description of the provisions of the 2005 India-US nuclear agreement, and analyzes its global, regional, and domestic implications.While the nuclear deal, like most events, was the product of a convergence of circumstances (such as the ideological orientation of the administration in the White House and the recent revelations about nuclear transfers out of Pakistan), the main enabling condition was India's strategy constituting itself as a responsible nuclear power. The paper highlights the power of the concept of responsibility, to which the Indian government has repeatedly made reference. It will conclude by comparing the policy options available to the Canadian government in responding to this deal.

No abstract

No abstract

The evolving international counter-terrorism regime obliges and permits countries to make changes in their domestic and foreign policies. At the same time, policy-makers in national capitals respond creatively to the global regime. By examining India's response to the evolving international regime on terrorism, I will demonstrate the mechanism through which the regime is influencing Indian policy: by setting up an identity that the country can aspire to. Further, by highlighting the leveraging of regime norms by the Indian state to further its own projects, I will show that states are not restricted to either passively receiving and complying with international norms on the one hand, or rejecting them on the other. current research projects deal with the adoption and adaptation of deterrence theory in South Asia, and the effects of immigration on national identity and security.The evolving international counter-terrorism regime obliges and permits countries to make changes in their domestic policies. The regime also requires them to cooperate with other states, thereby influencing foreign policies. At the same time, policy-makers in national capitals respond creatively to the global regime. For example, while India's policies on terrorism are structured by regime norms, the country seeks to seize an influential position at this formative moment in the evolution of the counter-terrorism regime. Indian policy-makers leverage the normative bases of the regime in order to advance their preferred policies at home and abroad. India's selective adoption and strategic interpretation of the regime's norms will ultimately influence not only the direction of the international regime but also the country's own identity.By examining India's response to the evolving international regime on terrorism, I will demonstrate the mechanism through which the regime is influencing Indian policy: by setting up an identity that the country can aspire to. Further, by highlighting the leveraging of regime norms by the Indian state to further its own projects, I will show that states are not restricted to either passively receiving and complying with international norms on the one hand, or rejecting them on the other. These arguments are based on research in the aftermath of the * This article was accepted by the RIS for publication in 2008.

This paper examines the role of identity in shaping counter-terrorism policy in Canada. We show that identity functions in three ways: constitutively by defining the range of choices a state is likely to consider; strategically by being a resource to buttress arguments based in economic or sovereignty; and heuristically by using identity as a marker for risk. This three-faceted explanation helps explain why, despite close economic, social, and political links between Canada and the United States which might lead us to expect Canada to follow American counter-terrorism policy, Canadian counter-terrorism policy often diverges from the American lead.