Controlling weapons of mass destruction through the rule of law

Many who speak of the end of the Cold War emphasize the improvement in international relations when they speak of the momentous consequences of this event. According to this image, the half century since Trinity has been a period of sparse international communication during which the Eastern and Western blocs hibernated in their isolated dens of security alliances. The emphasis in the phrase ``Cold War`` was on the word ``cold,`` and relations with the former Communist regimes are now ``warm`` by comparison. It is equally valid to consider what has happened to the word ``was` in this highly descriptive phrase. While meaningful international dialogue was in a state of relative lethargy during much of the last fifty years, the military establishments of the Great Powers were actively engaged in using as much force as possible in their efforts to control world affairs, short of triggering a nuclear holocaust. Out of these military postures a tense peace ironically emerged, but the terms by which decisions were made about controlling weapons of mass destruction (i.e., nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons) were the terms of war. The thesis of this paper is that the end of the Cold War marks a shift away from reliance on military might toward an international commitment to controlling weapons,of mass destruction through the ``rule of law.`` Rawls wrote that ``legal system is a coercive order of public rules addressed to rational persons for the purpose of regulating their conduct and providing the framework for social cooperation. The regular and impartial administration of public rules, becomes the rule of law when applied to the legal system.`` Inparticular, Rawls identifies as part of this system of public rules those laws that aim to prevent free riders on the economic system and those that aim to correct such externalities as environmental pollution.`