Abstract
Arms control has been strongly attacked from two quarters since the end of the Cold War. Some argue that it is flawed in essence, elaborating a conservative critique developed over 25 years. Others argue that arms control was a Cold War institution, and therefore its time has passed. Both are wrong, fundamentally because arms control is defined too narrowly. A typology of arms control is proposed with five distinct forms: the traditional interpretation, focusing on strategic stability; arms control at the end of major conflicts; arms control to develop the laws of war; controls on proliferation; and arms control by international organization. Arms control has a long history, and when seen in this broader perspective, it is clear that it has a future.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
