Description
Although the Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) claims to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and encourage more nuclear responsibility, it does so by rendering nuclear weapons acceptable. It upholds a violent status quo in which nuclear weapons remain a constant threat. Even though the treaty makes possible the very thing it is supposed to prevent, norm entrepreneurs opted to align the new nuclear prohibition norm with the NPT framework. Rather than shaming the NPT, norm makers utilised a constructive discourse in which the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) serves to complement provisions in place. This article examines the significance of the NPT to the generation of the new nuclear prohibition norm. It argues that norm entrepreneurs harnessed the legitimacy of the NPT to construct the appropriateness of the TPNW, mitigating the fear of newness, creating a positive momentum of inquiry grounded in institutional identity, and neutralising the action of norm antipreneurs. The study is grounded in the constructivist tradition, but it seeks to push existing understandings about norm dynamics further. While previous studies portray stigmatisation as the core norm making strategy, this article shows that framing the new as a complement to inadequacy is an effective strategy of new norm generation. The study also engages with current debates about the value of the NPT to the future of nuclear politics; it indicates that ditching the NPT, at least in the short term, might not be the best way to go about implementing the prohibition norm.
