Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

The term disarmament is generally used to describe a process of reducing and eliminating certain weapons systems, but it may also depict an end state when a specific type of weapon has been abolished. The quest for a definition is complicated because the concept of disarmament may be employed for different purposes in diplomacy, in international relations, and in national and international security debates. Disarmament can apply to any armaments system, from nuclear weapons to land mines, and depending on political perspective may be cast as negative (inducing vulnerability) or positive (promoting peace).

Though disarmament may be linked with arms control, the two approaches are different. Arms control covers partial measures and mechanisms for managing and restricting the development and possession of certain kinds of armaments, whereas disarmament is the process or accomplishment of the elimination and abolition of such weapons systems. Arms control may be an end in itself, leaving some weapons in the hands of some countries, or it can provide a stepping stone toward disarmament, but the two concepts are not interchangeable and should not be confused. Concepts of disarmament are related not only to reducing and eliminating weapons but also to challenging traditional, military concepts of security, defense, and deterrence and constructing alternative approaches for peace and security. This entry discusses various approaches to disarmament.

General and Complete Disarmament

When used in relation to nuclear weapons, disarmament and nonproliferation are frequently described as two sides of the same coin, implying that one is not sustainable without the other. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which entered into force in 1970 with the purpose of preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and technologies, contained in its Article VI an obligation to pursue nuclear disarmament. Article VI also referred to “general and complete disarmament,” a phrase drawn from United Nations (UN) resolutions going back to 1946. No timetable was set for achieving these objectives, and there are many competing interpretations of what would actually need to be done to implement Article VI.

In the aftermath of World War II, “general and complete disarmament” reflected the aspiration of resolving all conflict through diplomacy, without recourse to force and arms, but its meaning has never been clarified. Was it intended to mean a world without all weapons or a world without nationally controlled war-fighting weapons? It appears that the founders of the UN wanted this aspiration to guide international relations toward more peaceful directions. Certainly, the world would have to change fundamentally if total disarmament, peace, and security were ever to be possible. The inclusion of “general and complete disarmament” in Article VI of the NPT has more often been used by some of the nuclear weapon states (defined in the NPT to include China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom [UK], and the United States) to justify not eliminating their nuclear weapons until there is general and complete disarmament. So that the laudable but remote goal of total disarmament would not be used as an excuse to hold on to nuclear weapons, the Sixth Review Conference of the NPT, held in 2000, made clear in its consensus final document that nuclear disarmament is the most urgent priority under the treaty and that achieving nuclear disarmament is not contingent on general and complete disarmament, which is the “ultimate goal.”

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading