nuclear power, although it is strongly believed that covert, and actually illegal,
help was provided by citizens of at least one other nuclear state. Whether any
breach of the treaty has been involved in this process is unknown. South Africa
signed the NPT in 1991, thus effectively giving up its nuclear, or near-nuclear,
capability. Unlike the test ban treaties of 1963 and 1974, and theSALTand
Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START) processes, the NPT can hardly be
seen as demonstrating international goodwill, but seems instead to function
almost entirely in the self-interest of the originating nations. Interestingly it has
been generally accepted by experts, including Americans, that the Soviet
Union had a better record for carrying out its obligations under the NPT
than the USA. The entire idea of non-proliferation has changed its focus now
that the primary fear is the acquisition of nuclear weapons by so called ‘rogue
nations’ like Iraq, or by terrorist organizations. While established nation states
may find it easier to agree to non-proliferation regimes under these circum-
stances, the widespread availability of redundant nuclear technology in the
aftermath of thecold warmakes the situation much harder to police.
Nozick
Robert Nozick (1938–2002), along with JohnRawls, did more than anyone
else to re-create and revive political theory in the Western post-war world.
Like Rawls he based his approach onliberalismand a trenchant defence of
inalienable rights which governments may not take away just because to do so
might be for the aggregate public good (seenatural rights). Also like Rawls,
and inevitably for someone who takes this position, he was a vehement
opponent ofutilitarianismand its subdued but definite acceptance by nearly
all political actors in the West.
Nozick, however, was very much more firm than Rawls in holding these
positions and, because of the particular rights he holds most dear, was much
more critical of the legitimacy of modern government and of typical Western
welfare state/mixed economy policy. His main work,Anarchy, State and
Utopia(1974), is still hotly debated and much written about. Nozick’s theory
had three main strands to it. The first was that it was totally individual-based,
rejecting any idea that societies, states or collectives of any form could be the
bearers of rights or owe duties; these could be legitimate only in so far that they
were voluntary aggregations of individuals, and not just because they may, as a
matter of fact, have made most or all members better off. The second,
consequent on the first strand, was its approach to the political system, which
was semi-anarchist in that Nozick regarded as legitimate only the very
minimum state power necessary to uphold the prior existing rights of the
individual citizens. The state should, for Nozick, be not much more than a
police force, and he did, indeed, go to some length to explain why even this
Nozick