Description
In this paper we develop a new framework for understanding the role of scientific expertise in nuclear negotiations through an examination of the case of verification in the Limited Test Ban Treaty. What states may or may not do with nuclear technologies is highly regulated at the international level through a system of bilateral and multilateral agreements. Although the substance of these agreements is access to and manipulation of the physical materials that constitute nuclear weapons, the purpose of these agreements is often to resolve political conflicts that go beyond the narrow technical questions at hand. We argue that technological justifications by experts for what is or is not scientifically possible serve broader political functions in treaty negotiations, enabling political settlements that may be unsavory or unpopular to remain implicit in the technical terms of the agreement. At the same time, embedding political meaning within technical terms creates possibilities for political contestation through technological resistance. It incentivizes scientists to channel their advocacy into developing new technologies that push existing boundaries and challenge the political consensus.
