Description
New global political challenges, ranging from multipolarity to emerging technologies, are contesting the legitimacy of the nuclear nonproliferation regime in general, as well as its institutional foundation, the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in particular. Since the NPT is based on a grand injustice, questions about fairness and legitimacy of its normative foundation arise in the face of new, structural developments in international politics. This paper aims to identify, describe and assess the possible impact(s) of these contestations on the nonproliferation regime's legitimacy, understood here as a "right to rule". The paper does this by way of developing standards according to which one could assess the level of normative legitimacy of the regime and, consequently, explain its survival prospects. So far, the nonproliferation regime has proven its resilience but, the findings of this paper might suggest a need for the regime either to reform or be replaced. Answering the question about the regime's legitimacy contributes not just to discussions about the dynamics of global nuclear order but also to wider debates about the legitimacy of international institutions and norms underpinning them.
KEYWORDS: nuclear weapons, nonproliferation, regimes, legitimacy, international security, norms
