Oxford Martin School

On Thursday 15 October the Getting to Zero seminar series, co-hosted by the James Martin 21st Century School and the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict, was launched with a thought-provoking lecture by Professor Richard Price of the University of British Columbia. You can listen to a podcast of the lecture here.

Speaking on the topic of "Zero Chance? Aiming for Zero in Weapons Control", Prof Price drew together three strands of his research, 'tactics', 'diplomacy' and 'ethics', to set the scene for various global initiatives to target zero, especially in the context of weapons control or elimination.

On the subject of tactics, Prof Price spoke about the difficulty of defining the issue at stake. He identified the key variables affecting the success of international campaigns as:

• The simplicity and clarity of your message
• How well your message fits or resonates with the cultures you are dealing with.
• Whether or not you are able or willing to take advantage of a relevant crisis to boost the impact of your campaign.

With regards to diplomacy, the focus was on how best to respond to the problem of powerful players (such as the USA or China) who oppose your strategy. Dr Price discussed the nuanced advantages and disadvantages of a) going forward with a strong agreement, and only a few states that are willing to commit to it, and b) settling for a weaker agreement, with the aim of tightening up the commitments later, once everyone is involved.

Finally, Dr Price and Ms. Treasa Dunworth, a Senior Lecturer in Law at Auckland University, who was invited as respondent for the seminar, discussed some ethical considerations such as:

• By targeting some of the most distressing, dangerous or inhumane weapons for international bans, are we making war itself a more acceptable prospect?
• Should disarmament be approached from the point of view of state security, (e.g. banning nuclear, chemical or biological weapons which are capable of wreaking unacceptable damage)? Or should we be approaching this from a humanitarian point of view?
• In this case, should we shift our focus from individual classes of weapon, such as landmines, and start classing acceptable practice according to impact, for example by banning the use of explosive weapons in urban areas?

The lecture was followed by comments and questions from Dr David Rodin, co-Director of the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict, Ms. Treasa Dunworth, and members of the audience.

Questions included:

• Zero, in the context of weapons control, seems analogous with previous attempts at prohibition. Why should we expect weapons prohibition to work, where most similar schemes have failed?
• Surely it is futile to put so much effort into convincing states to sign up to weapons bans, given the increasing importance of non-state actors (such as the Taliban in Afghanistan) who subscribe to no international conventions and, indeed, often set out to cause harm to civilians.
• Isn't the real problem facing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that it is no longer seen as wrong to possess nuclear weapons, only to use them?
• Would getting to zero in the context of nuclear weapons really result in a safer world? Wouldn't it just mean that states were less concerned about the potential risks of going to war?
• In this case, should nuclear disarmament be considered separately to any other weapons disarmament initiatives?

We invite further comments and discussion below.