print

Paradigms in arms control

Nikitin A.I.,

MGIMO University; Primakov National Research Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO), Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia, an@inno.mgimo.ru

elibrary_id: 637132 | ORCID: 0000-0003-3509-6893 | RESEARCHER_ID: O-6521-2015

Lodgaard S.,

Independent Researcher, Oslo, Norway, SL@nupi.no

DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2026.04.05
EDN: TWDMIX

Rubric: Theory and methodology of political studies

For citation:

Nikitin A.I., Lodgaard S. Paradigms in arms control. – Polis. Political Studies. 2026. No. 4. https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2026.04.05. EDN: TWDMIX

Abstract

This article analyzes a complex of 69 treaties and agreements in the areas of arms control, disarmament, confidence-building measures, and transparency in the military-political sphere. To systematize this array of agreements, it proposes an innovative application of paradigmatic theory of development, shaped in epistemology and applicable to many fields. Groups of basic principles are identified that form six paradigm clusters in arms control, including the paradigms of risk reduction, nonproliferation, limitations without reduction, elimination of quantities and whole classes of weapons, strategic stability, and confidence-building measures. The Russian and Western authors jointly challenge the widespread opinion that arms control “died” in the first quarter of the 21st century. The article distinguishes, on the one hand, between two dozen treaties that have been terminated or have expired, and, on the other, a fairly extensive array of several dozen conventions, treaties, and agreements that remain legally in force and, in whole or in part, continue to regulate international coercive power relations in practice. Numerous agreements, both multilateral within the UN and bilateral, remain in effect, and a forthcoming seventh paradigm in arms control can and should be developed by combining a number of principles borrowed from the previous six paradigms with new principles reflecting contemporary political realities, the evolution of military strategies, and scientific and technological developments.

Keywords

arms control, disarmament, confidencе-building measures, nuclear weapons, NPT, START, INF, strategic stability.

Adler, E. (1992). The emergence of cooperation: national epistemic communities and the international evolution of the idea of nuclear arms control. International Organization, 46(1), 101-145. https://doi. org/10.1017/S0020818300001466

Brooks, L.F. (2020). The end of arms control? Daedalus, 149(2), 84-100. https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_01791

Colby, E. (2014). The need for limited nuclear options. In D. Ochmanek, & M. Sulmeyer (eds.), Challenges in U.S. National Security Policy (pp. 141-168). Santa Monica.

Palme Commission. (1982). Common security: a programme for disarmament: the Report of the Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security Issues Under the Chairmanship of Olof Palme. London: Pan Books.

Dhanapala, J. (1990). The hierarchy of arms control and disarmament treaties. Denver Journal of International Law & Policy 19(1), 37-46.

Donmoyer, R. (2006). Take my paradigm… please! The legacy of Kuhn’s construct in educational research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(1), 11-34. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390500450177

Fine, B. (2002). Economics imperialism and the new development economics as kuhnian paradigm shift? World Development, 30(12), 2057-2070. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(02)00122-5

Goldblat, J. (1994). Arms control. A guide to negotiations and agreements. Oslo; Geneva: Sage.

Gutting, G. (Ed.). (1980). Paradigms and revolutions: applications and appraisals of Thomas Kuhn’s philosophy of science. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

Kuhn, Th.S. (2012). Structure of scientific revolutions: 50^th anniversary edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kühn, Ü. (2019). The end of conventional arms control and the role of the U.S. Congress. Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament, 2(1), 253-273. https://doi.org/10.1080/25751654.2019.1607993

Kühn, Ü., & Williams, H. (2024). Behavioral arms control and East Asia. Seoul: APLN, RECNA, Nautilus Institute. April 2024. https://www.recna.nagasaki-u.ac.jp/recna/bd/files/Kuhn-and-Williams_SRno19_RECNA_20240416.pdf

Kühn, Ü. (Ed.). (2020). Trilateral arms control? Perspectives from Washington, Moscow, and Beijing. IFSH Research Report 002. Hamburg: Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy. https://www.ifsh.de/file/publication/Research_Report/002/20200224_IFSH_Research_Report_002_final.pdf

Lodgaard, S., & Nikitin, A. (2026). In search of a new arms control paradigm. Arms Control Today, 56(1), 12-21.

Schelling, T.C., & Halperin, M.H. (1961). Strategy and arms control. New York: The Twentieth Century Fund.

Wendt, A. (1992). Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics. International Organization, 46(2), 391-425. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300027764

Wendt, A. (1999). A social theory of international politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511612183

Wisotzki, S., & Kühn, U. (2021). Crisis in arms control: an introduction. Zeitschrift für Friedens- und Konfliktforschung, 10, 183-194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42597-022-00074-8

Antonov, A.I. (2012). Kontrol’ nad vooruzheniyami: istoriya, sostoyaniye, perspektivy [Arms control: history, status, prospects]. Moscow: ROSSPEN Publishers. (In Russ.)

Arbatov, A.G. (2020). Novyye tekhnologicheskiye faktory i perspektivy kontrolya nad vooruzheniyami [New technological factors and prospects for arms control]. In A.G. Arbatov (Ed.), Kontrol’ nad vooruzheniyami v novykh voyenno-politicheskikh i tekhnologicheskikh usloviyakh [Arms Control in the New Military, Political and Technological Conditions] (pp. 7-22). Moscow: IMEMO RAS. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20542/978-5-9535-0576-5

Bogdanov, K.V. (2023). Evolyutsiya yadernykh doktrin posle kholodnoy voyny [The evolution of nuclear doctrines after the Cold War]. In A.G. Arbatov et al. (Eds.), Mezhdunarodnaya bezopasnost’: novyy miroporyadok i tekhnologicheskaya revolyutsiya [International Security: The New World Order and Technology Revolution] (pp. 31-51). Moscow: Ves mir. (In Russ.)

Clausewitz, von K. (1934). Vom Krieg. (Russ. ed.: Clausewitz, von K. O voine. Moscow: Gosvoenizdat).

Fenenko, A.V. (2019). Neorealizm v politicheskoy teorii [Neorealism in political theory]. In O.V. GamanGolutvina, & A.I. Nikitin (Eds.), Sovremennaya politicheskaya nauka. Metodologiya [Contemporary Political Science. Methodology] (pp. 61-83). Moscow: Aspect Press. (In Russ.)

Mizin, V.I. (2025) Prospects of Russian-American dialogue on strategic stability and new start. Social Sciences and Contemporary World, 1, 50-66. (In Russ.)

Oznobishchev, S.K. (2023). Novyye ugrozy katastroficheskogo terrorizma [New threats of catastrophic terrorism]. In A.G. Arbatov et al. (Eds.), Mezhdunarodnaya bezopasnost’: novyy miroporyadok i tekhnologicheskaya revolyutsiya [International Security: The New World Order and Technology Revolution] (pp. 353-366). Moscow: Ves mir. (In Russ.)

Stefanovich, D.V., & Porras, D. (2022). Space as a competition domain: threats and opportunities. Journal of International Analytics, 13(2), 95-106. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.46272/2587-8476-2022-13-2-95-106

Zagorsky, A., & Oznobishchev, S.K. (2024). Gonka vooruzheniy v Yevrope [Arms race in Europe]. In A.G. Arbatov (Ed.), Strategicheskiy obzor 2024 [Strategic Review 2024] (pp. 41-88). Moscow: MGIMO University. (In Russ.)

See also: