[MUSIC] The existing international arms control measures can be divided into two large categories, those that control weapons of mass destruction, or WMD, and those that control conventional armaments and conventional armed forces. The notion of WMD is relatively young. And in the political science, there is a long standing academic debate regarding how to interpret the definition, weapons of mass destruction. However, in international arms control agreements in the sphere of arms control diplomacy, this notion of WMD has very strict and narrow interpretation. The notion of WMD was described in 1949 by the Commission for Conventional Armaments, and included atomic explosive weapons, radioactive material weapons, or the so call dirty bomb. Lethal chemical and biological weapons, and all other weapons that could be developed in the future. And that could have the destructive capacity comparable with the force of the atomic bomb or with any other weapons mentioned above. But even if we look at the definition of WMD in a broader context, we can see that all definitions and notions refer to several universal general features. First of all, a weapon is described as a WMD if this weapon have indiscriminative effect. Second, this weapon may cause massive destructions. And third, this weapon may cause massive casualties. Respectively, a weapon that does not have massive destruction capacity is called conventional weapons. The expert community doesn't have a joint vision regarding the correlation of two definitions, disarmament and arms control. One group of experts says that disarmament is a broad definition, and enclose in this context such notions as arms limitations, regulation of armament, and arms reduction. Another group of experts says that arms control is a more broad concept, and arms control can be used to describe the broad scope of measures, including disarmament, non-proliferation and abolition of some armaments. Originally, in the second part of the 20th century, arms control was used to describe the measures to stop nuclear arms race. And arms regulations and disarmament were used in the UN Charter. So for a long period of time there was strict distinction between those three terms. I should highlight that ban can be both partial and comprehensive. And usually, nuclear non-proliferation goes together with nuclear disarmament. And we are speaking about non-proliferation together with ban and disarmament, if we're talking about chemical weapons, for example, or biological weapons. After the end of the Cold War, the international environment has become very complexive, and it determined the broad variety of arms control measures. That's why, for the purpose of our course, we will use arms control as a broad definition. And we will describe disarmament and non-proliferation as missions of the arms control. As a tool of international arms control diplomacy and national security, arms control agreements can control the deployment of armaments. Here, we can mention five zones free of nuclear weapons, for example. Or we can mention that the deployment of weapons of masses destruction is prohibited in the outer space, on the Moon, on the celestial bodies, and in the Antarctica, and on the seabed. Arms control measures may constrain or prohibit the use of certain type of weaponry on the battlefield. Some limitations may be established to regulate technical features of some technology that is used to produce armaments. Arms control agreements may regulate transfer of armaments or military related technologies or items. Also, arms control agreements may ban the development, production and stockpiling of certain types of armaments. At the same time, arms control agreements may regulate the technological chain of development of armaments. So, why do states sign and ratify international arms control agreements? What is the function of arms control for international security and national security? Basically, there is a combination of economic and security reasons why state participates in different international arms control arrangements. And we can divided all the reasons into four categories. First, by regulating the arms race, An agreement may reduce the tensions between the states. And by these means the international security is supported. Second, by setting limits on the use of certain types of weaponry and certain means of warfare, it is possible to make the war less harmful and less un-human. So it is possible to reduce the consequences of war. At the same time, Arms controls measures may slow down the arms race. And by managing the balance of power and by managing military capabilities of the participating states, an arms control agreement may help to create stable and predictable international environment. In a word, it can help to reduce fears, misperceptions and makes situation more predictable. At the same time, arms control diplomacy may be effective in preempting the development of new types of technologies for military purposes. The states may sign arms control agreements to keep balance of power and support strategic stability. Most of the international arms control agreements include the norm that international disputes must be settled by peaceful means. At the same time, arms control diplomacy can help states to save money. The cessation of an arms race may help to cut defense budgets. And by these means may help the state to spend budgetary money on the economic development and social prosperity. So this is all about arms control, disarmament, and nonproliferation.
