Abstract: Although research indicates that verification is critical for successful nuclear weapons agreements, some scholars and policymakers are skeptical that transparency can ever be achieved. This paper asks whether states can reach credible agreements without verification. Beyond monitoring institutions, many pacts require destruction of program infrastructure, which adds to the cost of future violations. I show that such cost increases in the form of moderate nuclear reversals incentivize opponents to cut deals that ultimately leave all parties better off. Arms treaties therefore primarily benefit potential proliferators, not their opposition. I apply these findings to help explain features of the recent Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (“Iran Deal”).
Pages
- Classes
- PS 0500 (Spring 2022)
- PS 1581 (Spring 2022)
- PS 0500 (Fall 2021)
- PS 0500 (Spring 2021)
- PS 2704 (Fall 2020)
- PS 1581 (Fall 2020)
- PS 1514 (2020 Spring)
- PS 1581 (2020 Spring)
- PS 0500 (2019 Spring)
- PS 1581 (2019 Spring)
- PS 1581 (2018 Fall)
- PS 2704
- PS 0500 (2018 Spring)
- PS 1581 (2018 Spring)
- PS 0500 (2017 Fall)
- PS 0500 (2017 Spring)
- PS 1514 (2017 Spring)
- PS 1514 (2016)
- PSC/IR 106 (2015)
- PSC/IR 265 (2015)
- PSC/IR 106 (2014)
- PSC/IR 265 (2014)
- PSC/IR 106 (2013)
- PSC/IR 106 (2012)
- CV
- Game Theory Calculator
- Papers
- Arms Negotiations, War Exhaustion, and the Credibility of Preventive War
- Bad-Faith Cooperation
- Bargaining over Costly Signals
- Bargaining over the Bomb: The Successes and Failures of Nuclear Negotiations
- Bribery and Fair Representation on the United Nations Security Council
- Cornering the Market: Optimal Governmental Responses to Competitive Political Violence
- Credible Commitment in Covert Affairs
- Deterring Intervention: The Civil Origins of Nuclear Proliferation
- Do Nonproliferation Agreements Constrain?
- Doubling Down: The Dangers of Disclosing Secret Actions
- Getting a Hand By Cutting Them Off: How Uncertainty over Political Corruption Affects Violence
- High Valuations, Uncertainty, and War
- How Fast and How Expensive? Uncertainty and Incentives in Nuclear Negotiations
- How Uncertainty About Judicial Nominees Can Distort the Confirmation Process
- Introducing 𝜈-CLEAR: A Latent Variable Approach to Measuring Nuclear Proficiency
- Issue Indivisibility as a Cause of Peace
- Militarized Disputes, Uncertainty, and Leader Tenure
- Multi-Method Research: A Case for Formal Theory
- Only Here to Help? Bargaining and the Perverse Incentives of International Institutions
- Outbidding as Deterrence: Endogenous Demands in the Shadow of Group Competition
- Policy Bargaining and Militarized Conflict
- Power to the People: Credible Communication in the Quotidian Use of Authoritarian Institutions
- Power Transfers, Military Uncertainty, and War
- Rational Overreaction to Terrorism
- Sanctions, Uncertainty, and Leader Tenure
- Scientific Intelligence, Nuclear Assistance, and Bargaining
- Shooting the Messenger: The Challenge of National Security Whistleblowing
- Slow to Learn: Bargaining, Uncertainty, and the Calculus of Conquest
- Stall Wars: When Do States Fight to Hold onto the Status Quo?
- Terrorism, Signaling, and Delegation
- The Uncertainty Trade-off: Reexamining Opportunity Costs and War
- When Technocratic Appointments Signal Credibility
- You Get What You Give: A Model of Nuclear Reversal
- Textbook
- YouTube
- Classes
Pingback: The Power Shift Myth: Understanding Preventive War | William Spaniel