Risk can be thought of as the product of consequence times probability. No one can assign a number to the probability, for example, that a terrorist gang will acquire a nuclear weapon, although experts think the probability is considerably greater today than at any previous time. We do know, however, that the consequences of a nuclear explosion in any major population center would be catastrophic. The inescapable conclusion is that the global community is facing a very serious risk. What I want to discuss with you today is what is being done to deal with it and what still needs to be done.

The renewed American debate over ballistic missile defenses (BMD) echoes loudly in NATO, in Europe, and in France. This issue will be decisive for the future of European political organization and its security and defense. The issue will also be important for the future of relations between Europe, the United States, and Russia.

Faced with the potential threat of ballistic missiles equipped with nuclear warheads (or biological and chemical payloads) that could strike French and European territories, deterrence is sufficient and offers the greatest cost-effectiveness. In this analysis, the question of the broadening of the French and British deterrent and the political organization of a possible European anti-missile defense system will be discussed. Then, a new transatlantic strategic partnership, the robustness of which lies in counterbalancing the vulnerabilities of its members, will be described.

The development of "information warfare" presents international legal issues that will complicate nations' efforts both to execute and to respond to certain information warfare attacks, specifically those using computers, telecommunications, or networks to attack adversary information systems. Some legal constraints will certainly apply to information warfare, either because the constraints explicitly regulate particular actions, or because more general principles of international law govern the effects of those actions. Nevertheless, the novelty of certain information warfare techniques may remove them from application of established legal categories. Furthermore, the ability of signals to travel across international networks, and affect systems in distant countries, conflicts with the long-standing principle of national, territorial sovereignty.

Transcript of the first in a series of lectures on  "The U.S.-Russian Strategic Partnership: Premature or Overdue?"

This discussion focused on what Russia and the United States might do to dismantle the nuclear weapons legacy of the Cold War.  Tens of thousands of nuclear bombs and warheads are still held by the two nations.  Wat can be done to rid the world of these weapons?  Can we move beyond START II, and indeed, will the Russian Duma ratify START II? Russia and the United States have the capacity to lead the world into a post-nuclear war era.  The question for today is, will they?

Participants:

AMBASSADOR JAMES E. GOODBY, Distinguished Payne Professor, IIS

Principal Negotiator and Special Representative of the President

for Nuclear Security and Dismantlement, 1995-1996

MR. ALEXANDER YERESKOVSKY

Minister-Counselor, Russian Embassy in the United States

DR. NIKOLAI SOKOV

Fellow, Monterey Institute of International Studies

DR. JOHN STEINBRUNER

Senior Fellow and holder of the Sydney Stein, Jr. Chair in International Security

at the Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C.

Scott D. Sagan notes that the question of why states seek to build nuclear weapons has scarcely been examined, although it is crucial to efforts at preventing proliferation. He challenges the traditional realist assumption, accepted uncritically by many scholars and policymakers, that states seek to acquire or develop nuclear weapons primarily for military and strategic reasons. Sagan examines alternate explanations for the demand for nuclear weapons.

Revised and updated versions of this article also appear as "The Causes of Nuclear Proliferation," Current History (April 1997), pp. 151-156; as "Why Do States Build Nuclear Weapons?" in Victor Utgoff, ed., The Coming Crisis: Nuclear Proliferation, U.S. Interests, and World Order (MIT Press, 1999), p. 17-50; and as "Why Do States Build Nuclear Weapons? Three Models in Search of a Bomb," in New Global Dangers: Changing Dimensions of International Security (International Security Reader, July 2004).

This paper raises the following questions: Can OSCE live up to high expectations for conflict prevention and crisis management? Is it able and equipped to meet this demanding task? Is OSCE well-suited and placed to play a central role in European security? Is the role of a "framework organization" a suitable task for OSCE? The underlying issues are about the relationship and links between OSCE and the Atlantic Aliance--whether the ambiguities of OSCE's performance can be warded off, and whether the overall performance of OSCE can be improved by cooperation with NATO.

By developing a strategic approach to the implementation of peace accords in civil war, the United Nations can better the odds for ending a war and fostering development in the long run. Recent attempts at implementation have suffered from recurring difficulties: incomplete, vague and expedient agreements; lack of coordination between implementing agencies; lack of sustained attention by the international community; incomplete fulfillment of agreements by warring parties; and the presence of 'spoilers' who seek to destroy and incipient peace. To overcome these difficulties, the UN must encourage the parties to choose political, cultural, social and economic security-building measures during the negotiation phase and systematically apply confidence-building measures to the military components of implementation. This demands a reconsideration of peace making in a civil war to include a long-term international commitment to the development of war-torn societies.

This essay surveys and seeks to explain the (re-)emergence and enforcement of international minority-rights standards in Europe after the Cold War.  The period since 1989 has seen a marked divergence between strengthening minority-rights standards at the international level and worsening conflict and repression in many states in the region.  Enforcement efforts by the CSCE/OSCE, Council of Europe, and European Union have been modest and are focused on states integrating economically and militarily into Western Europe.

On March 4 and 5, 1996, the Stanford Center for International Security and Arms Control, in conjunction with the Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict, convened a research planning conference on "Police Reform in States under Transition." The conference was unusual in that its primary purpose was to foster an ongoing discussion between academics working in the area of democratization and police reform, and policymakers running police reform programs in countries such as Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, South Africa, and EI Salvador. Our primary goal for the conference was to construct a research agenda that would allow continued dialogue between scholars and policymakers, and would focus on questions of theory and practice immediately applicable to policymakers in the field.

Participants in the conference included Robert Perito, Special Advisor to the Director of the International Criminal Investigative Training Assistance Program (ICITAP), U.S. Department of Justice; Frederick Mecke, Director, Office of International Criminal Justice, U.S. Department of State; Arnstein Overkil, Police Major General of Asker and Baerum Police Headquarters in Norway, and advisor to the Palestinian Authority on policing; Diana Gordon, Chair of the Department of Political Science at City College of New York; Louise Shelley, professor in the Department of Justice, Law and Society at American University; William Stanley from the Department of Political Science at the University of New Mexico; Jeffrey Ian Ross, a fellow at the National Institute of Justice; and faculty and staff from Stanford University and the Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict.