The Nuclear Weapon States Securing Their Power Interests -A Rhetorical Analysis of the Argumentation on the Suppression of Nuclear Terrorism.

In this Master's Thesis I am examining the nuclear non-proliferation as a regime. Nuclear non-proliferation is mainly discussed in the framework of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). After the terrorist attacks in USA in September 2001 nuclear terrorism has become one of the major concerns in the international relations. In this thesis nuclear terrorism is studied in the framework of nuclear non-proliferation and the power structure created by the NPT. The starting point for this study is the assumption that the power structure created by the NPT affects the argumentation on the suppression of the acts of nuclear terrorism. The NPT allows only five states to acquire and possess nuclear weapons. It creates an unbalanced system of states based on the ownership of nuclear weapons. This system is studied as a regime. Nuclear terrorism is considered strictly connected to the further proliferation of nuclear materials and weapons. My assumption is that this attempt to create a convention suppressing nuclear terrorism is just a way for the nuclear weapon states to maintain and continue the non-proliferation regime and the power structure created by it. My research stands mainly somewhere between the structuralist and realist views of IR. International regime theories form the theoretical basis for this study. I am concentrating on representing two approaches of regime theories, the structuralist and the cognitivist approaches and especially the thinking of Robert Keohane and Ernst B. Haas. The non-proliferation regime is studied through Keohane’s theory of hegemonic stability and by using the central concept of knowledge from Haas’s thinking. The research method used in this Thesis is rhetoric. I chose to use new rhetoric and especially the argumentation theories of Chaïm Perelman and Stephen Toulmin. I use their theories of argumentation in analysis of the arguments of the United Nations Ad Hoc Committee on Terrorism. Argumentation is based on the states views of the Draft Convention on the Suppression of the Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. This research shows that the international power structure created by the NPT could still be found in the arguments of the Ad Hoc Committee. The NWS do not seem to be giving up their rights to be the only legitimate possessors and users of nuclear weapons. Nowadays globalized world has brought along new possibilities to proliferate nuclear weapons; even the non-state actors may acquire nuclear weapons. Five nuclear weapon states cannot maintain their power political status anymore through the traditional non-proliferation regime. They need to find new ways to legitimize and justify the limited possession of nuclear arsenals and their use. The international power system cannot be equal or efficient in trying to fight nuclear terrorism if it is based on the ownership of nuclear weapons and on the structures created by the non-proliferation regime. Recent developments seem to be turning the international system towards the situation where the powerful state is only trying to secure its own interests and maintain its power status.1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1. Research Question and the Objects of the Study 3 1.2. Theoretical Framework of the Study 5 1.3. Methodological Standpoint 7 1.4. Nuclear Non-Proliferation Regime and Problematic of Nuclear Terrorism 8 1.5. The Research Material 10 2. REGIME THEORETICAL APPROACHES IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS THEORY 12 2.1. The Rise of the International Regime Theories 12 2.1.1. Principles and Main Concepts of Regime Theories 14 2.2. Realist Approaches of International Regime Theories 16 2.2.1. Structural Approaches of International Regime Theories 18 2.3. Structural Theory of Hegemonic Stability 20 2.4. Cognitive Approaches of International Regime Theories 23 2.4.1. Ernst B. Haas and the Concept of Knowledge 25 2.5. Critique on the Structural and Cognitivist Approaches of the International Regime Theories 27 3. RHETORIC AS A RESEARCH METHOD 29 3.1. Rhetoric as a Way of Using Discourse 29 3.2. Chaïm Perelman’s Theories of Argumentation 31 3.2.1. Speakers and Their Audiences 32 3.2.2. The Premises of Argumentation 33 3.3. The Classification of the Argumentation Techniques by Chaïm Perelman 34 3.3.1. Quasi-Logical Arguments 35 3.3.2. Arguments Based on the Structure of Reality 37 3.3.3. Relations Establishing the Structure of Reality 38 3.3.4. Dissociative Argumentation 39 3.4. Stephen Toulmin and the Logic of Natural Argumentation 40 4. THE REGIME OF THE NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION 45 4.1. Nuclear Non-Proliferation and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons 46 4.2. The NPT and the Inequality in Power Distribution 484.3. Nuclear Non-Proliferation as a Regime 53 4.4. Possible Consequences of Further Proliferation 57 5. NUCLEAR TERRORISM 62 5.1. Terrorism as a Concept 63 5.2. Acts of Nuclear Terrorism 65 5.3. Nuclear Terrorism - Outside of the Regulation of the Non-Proliferation Regime 69 6. ANALYSIS ON THE ARGUMENTATION OF THE AD HOC COMMITTEE ON TERRORISM 72 6.1. The UN Ad Hoc Committee on Terrorism and Draft Convention On the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism 72 6.1.1. The Speakers and the Audience in the Case of the Ad Hoc Committee on Terrorism 74 6.1.2. The Premises in the Ad Hoc Committee’s Argumentation 75 6.2. Argumentation Techniques Used in the Arguments on the Draft Convention on the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism 76 6.2.1 Arguments in a Form of a Liaison 77 6.2.2 Arguments Based on the Dissociative Argumentation 86 6.3. Applying Steven Toulmin's Anatomical Model of an Argument 88 6.4. The Roles of the Hegemonic Stability and Knowledge in the Argumentation of the Ad Hoc Committee 90 7. CONCLUSIONS 94 8. BIBLIOGRAPHY: 100 ANNEX I 10