The diplomacy of resistance: power, hegemony and nuclear disarmament

Abstract

The humanitarian initiative for nuclear disarmament has challenged and transformed global nuclear politics. Aimed at delegitimising nuclear weapons as acceptable instruments of statecraft, the initiative has been backed by many civil society organisations and most nonnuclear-weapon states. The nuclear-armed states, however, have opposed the initiative, accusing it of undermining the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and destabilising nuclear politics. Conceptualising a 'diplomacy of resistance', this article positions the humanitarian initiative as a transnational social movement and traces its development through practices of resistance and counter-resistance. Drawing on Robert Cox's conception of resistance as counter-hegemonic and Michael Barnett and Raymond Duvall's taxonomy of power, the article explores the nexus of power and resistance in global nuclear politics. We explain the humanitarian movement's specific aims and practices as a function of its champion's relative political weakness vis-à-vis the nuclear armed states. The movement's coherence and effectiveness, in turn, was fostered by a coalitional logic that allowed different identities of resistance to be steered towards a nuclear ban treaty within the UN's institutional framework.

Oslo’s “new Track”: Norwegian Nuclear Disarmament Diplomacy, 2005–2013

“…Power, in this perspective, is not just about brute material force, but also about the forces determining when and how the application of such force is deemed acceptable. In particular, the proponents of the initiative targeted the enduring "prestige value" of nuclear weaponsthe view that nuclear weapons offer tangible symbols of a state's military might, technological competence, and masculine prowessand furthered an alternative hegemony centred on humanitarianism (Ritchie and Egeland 2018). While the TPNW alone will not be enough to secure the abolition of nuclear weapons, a stronger norm against nuclear weapons could be seen as a necessary (but not by itself sufficient) condition for any successful nuclear disarmament process.…”

“…These organizations would over the next few years provide analysis of diplomatic developments and create attention to the humanitarian initiative. In that way, the Norwegian government sought to foster a "counter hegemony" to the established common sense (Ritchie and Egeland 2018). ILPI and Article 36 spent much of their funding on so-called track II meetings (informal gatherings of diplomats and civil society actors).…”

“…As Todd Hall argues, state-level displays of emotion could be understood as a form of rational diplomatic signalling designed "to shape the perceptions and behaviors of others in order to achieve particular ends" (Hall 2015, 2-3). I suggest that the primary drivers of the ban initiative were not "frustration" or "disappointment", but the material risks associated with nuclear weapons, concern for the long-term viability of the NPT, long-standing demands for justice, and a belief in the productive power of norms (Ritchie and Egeland 2018).…”

The Nuclear Ban Treaty and 2018 Disarmament Forums: An Initial Impact Assessment

“…In studies written both before and after the 2017 negotiation of the Treaty, Ritchie argues that such a treaty plays a critical role in delegitimizing nuclear weapons (Ritchie 2013;Ritchie and Egeland 2018). Distinguishing between "legal legitimacy" (the exercise of power in compliance with existing law) and "moral legitimacy" (the rational moral and political principles that underpin laws and their relationship to social norms), Ritchie argues and provides empirical evidence from official statements, that the NPT has functionally served to legitimize current possession of nuclear weapons by the five NPT-recognised nuclear powers despite its Article VI obligation for those powers to negotiate elimination of their nuclear weapons.…”

“…In the case of the TPNW, all three kinds of delegitimation are in evidence, particularly as a result of the discourse on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. In a further study, following on the 2017 TPNW adoption, Ritchie and Egeland argue that the successful negotiation of the treaty represents a form of "productive power" exercised by transnational advocacy networks (TAN) in mobilizing normative pressure against nuclear weapons amongst like-minded forces and governments (Ritchie and Egeland 2018).…”