One of the first recorded arms control attempts was a set of rules established in ancient Greece by the amphictyonic leagues. Judgments determined how war could be fought, and violations of it could be punished with fines or war. Some of the most important international arms control treaties follow: Arms control treaties and treaties are often seen as a means of avoiding costly arms races that could prove counterproductive to national goals and future peace. [2] Some are used as a means of stopping the proliferation of certain military technologies (such as nuclear weapons or missile technology) in exchange for assurances to potential developers that they will not fall victim to these technologies. In addition, some arms control agreements are concluded to limit the damage caused by war, especially to civilians and the environment, which is considered bad for all participants, regardless of who wins a war. After the First World War, the League of Nations was founded, which tried to limit and reduce arms. [15] However, the implementation of this policy has not been effective. Various naval conferences, such as the Washington Naval Conference, were held between world war I and World War II to limit the number and size of the major warships of the five major naval powers. Arms control refers to international restrictions on the development, production, stockpiling, proliferation and use of small arms and light weapons, conventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction. [1] Arms control is generally exercised through the use of diplomacy, which aims to impose such restrictions on participants agreed through international treaties and agreements, although it may also include efforts by a nation or group of nations to impose restrictions on a non-consenting country. In 1998, the United Nations established the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA). Its objective is to promote nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, as well as the strengthening of disarmament regimes with regard to other weapons of mass destruction, chemical and biological weapons. It also encourages disarmament efforts in the field of conventional weapons, in particular landmines and small arms and light weapons, which are often the weapons of choice in contemporary conflicts.
[Citation needed] In the period between this and the rise of the Roman Catholic Church, there were few recorded attempts to control weapons. In the 8th and 9th centuries AD, swords and chain mail armor made in the Frankish Empire were highly sought after for their quality, and Charlemagne (r. 768-814) made it illegal to sell or export them to foreigners, punishing them for loss of property or even death. It was an attempt to restrict the possession and use of this equipment by enemies of the Franks, including the Moors, Vikings and Slavs. According to a 2020 study published in the American Political Science Review, arms control is rare because successful arms control agreements involve a difficult compromise between transparency and security. For arms control agreements to be effective, there must be a way to thoroughly verify that a State is complying with the agreement, for example through intrusive inspections. However, States are often reluctant to submit to such inspections if they have reason to fear that inspectors will use inspections to gather information on State capabilities that could be used in a future conflict. [12] The implementation of arms control agreements has proven difficult over time. Most agreements are based on the participants` continued desire to meet the terms and conditions in order to remain in effect.
Usually, when a nation no longer wants to meet the conditions, it will usually try to secretly circumvent the conditions or simply terminate its participation in the contract. This was evident in the Washington Fleet Treaty[3] (and in the subsequent London Fleet Treaty[4] where most participants attempted to circumvent the restrictions, some more legitimate than others. [5] The United States developed better technology to achieve better performance from its ships while continuing to operate within weight limits, the United Kingdom took advantage of a gap in terms, the Italians distorted the weight of their ships, and when Japan pushed against the borders, it simply left the treaty. Nations that have violated the terms of the treaty have not suffered great consequences for their actions. In just over a decade, the treaty was abandoned. The Geneva Protocol[6] lasted longer and was more respected, but nations still violated it at will when they felt the need. Enforcement has been random, with action being a matter of policy rather than compliance with conditions. This meant that sanctions and other measures against violations tended to be advocated primarily by their natural political enemies, while violations were ignored by their political allies or received only symbolic measures. [7] Recent arms control treaties contain stricter conditions for the application of violations as well as for verification. The latter has been a major obstacle to effective enforcement, as violations often seek to covertly circumvent the terms of agreements. Verification is the process of determining whether or not a nation is complying with the terms of an agreement and involves a combination of sharing that information by participants[8] as well as a way to allow participants to inform each other to verify that information.
[9] This often involves as much negotiation as the borders themselves, and in some cases, review issues have led to the failure of treaty negotiations (for example, review has been cited as the main concern of opponents of the Comprehensive No-Trials Treaty, which was ultimately not ratified by the United States). [10] [11] There are also many non-governmental organizations that promote a global reduction of nuclear weapons and offer research and analysis on the United States.
