Page |1

The Need for Cooperation with Doom on the Horizon: An Analysis of Liberalism’s
Viability in Increasing Worldwide Nuclear Development
Lewis Richardson
The Pennsylvania State University
Introduction
There is no single issue which plagues all people of all nations across the globe so much

as climate change. Contemporary social theorist Noam Chomsky made the impending

circumstances presented by the issue quite clear when he wrote:

Every single journal should have a shrieking headline every day saying we are heading to
total catastrophe. In a couple of generations, organized human society may not survive.
That has to be drilled into people’s heads constantly. After all, there’s been nothing like
this in all of human history. The current generation has to make a decision as to whether
organized human society will survive another couple of generations, and it has to be done
quickly, there’s not a lot of time.1
Although never one to shy away from hyperbole, Chomsky’s warning ought to invoke a sense of

foreboding in people from across the globe. In addition to this claim, Chomsky makes a similar

claim related to what he sees as an impending nuclear catastrophe. In an interview with The

Stone, he cites William Perry, one of the leading contemporary nuclear strategists, when he says,

“Today, the danger of some sort of a nuclear catastrophe is greater than it was during the Cold

War, and most people are blissfully unaware of this danger.”2 His claims that society and

civilization as we know it will drastically change should we continue our path of environmental

destruction has been largely confirmed by the scientific community.3 In fact, many scientists

project that we may be too far gone to ever reverse the trend that we as a species have set

1
Hackett, Robert. "Noam Chomsky: 'In a Couple of Generations, Organized Human Society May Not Survive.'."
National Observer. February 14, 2019. Accessed April 12, 2019.
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/02/12/features/noam-chomsky-couple-generations-organized-human-
society-may-not-survive-has-be.
2
Yancy, George. "Noam Chomsky on the Prospects for Nuclear War under Trump." E. July 10, 2017. Accessed
April 12, 2019. https://conversations.e-flux.com/t/noam-chomsky-on-the-prospects-for-nuclear-war-under-trump/
6795.
3
NASA. "Global Climate Change: Effects." NASA. November 28, 2018. Accessed April 12, 2019.
https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/.
 Page |2

ourselves on.4 Paired with his statements on the existential threat posed by nuclear war, the world

appears to be in a very grim place indeed. Despite this, such an outlook is certainly not

encouraged, as it is nothing more than an acceptance of our eventual extinction as a species.

Clearly, the onus of saving our species as we know it falls to the institutions which possess the

very same power to destroy life as we know it — governments.

For all intents and purposes, the government has the power to control nearly all things

relevant to modern civilization, and with that comes the power to mitigate the tremendous harms

which will be caused by climate change. Because climate change is a global issue, it is up to the

governments of the world to come together to responsibly solve the issues that it presents.

Accordingly, such collaboration can only be accomplished through the coordination and

cooperation central to liberal theories of international relations. There is obviously no easy policy

fix to an issue as vast as climate change. For a single government to attempt to altogether erase

its own environmental impact would not only make it hugely unpopular with its citizens, but also

weaken its infrastructure and economic activity in our globalized, consumption-oriented world to

the point of collapse. Small steps made in cooperation with other nations across the world are the

only way that any tangible headway towards sustainable living can and will be accomplished.

Surely there must be a solution that allows for consumption to remain steady, while also

providing the tools to maintain national security and worldwide economic relevance.

A rational individual would presume that world governments and policymakers have

expended all possible solutions, and we are simply waiting for technological improvements to

save us. Despite this, there does in fact exist a viable alternative to our impending doom which

governments and people have almost entirely ignored out of fear — nuclear power. To many, the

4
Ibid.
 Page |3

very mention of it brings about stories of catastrophic nuclear occurrences like that at Chernobyl,

Fukushima, and Three Mile Island. Further, the spread of nuclear power brings with it the threat

of increased proliferation of nuclear weapons, the most powerful tool of mass destruction the

world has ever seen. To Baby Boomers, the spread of nuclear may invoke nightmarish memories

from their childhood of practicing nuclear bomb protocols in the case of an attack. Out of these

fears comes the stagnation of nuclear power development, which exists as a significantly more

economical solution capable of meeting the world’s increased power needs while simultaneously

slowing the inevitable environmental destruction humanity has brought upon itself.

Considering the environmental and security catastrophe discussed, it is vital that the

principles of cooperation and coordination theorized by liberalism work in practice should the

move towards nuclear serve as a realistic alternative to fossil fuels moving forward. Within this

article, I explore how the principles of liberalism apply to the nuclear power dilemma that

plagues the geopolitical scene of the modern day. For the sake of this analysis, I must make it

clear that one single event is not being analyzed. Rather, I analyze the way that liberalism aids

the movement to nuclear power as a worldwide phenomenon. The question of how well liberal

institutions work in maintaining a safer expansion of nuclear power is explored. On this, I

explore the places within worldwide nuclear power development — specifically the situations

which have led to proliferation — which have demonstrated the shortcomings of liberal

institutions. Ultimately, I make the case that only through coordination and cooperation amongst

the nations of the world can nuclear power be implemented on a large scale due to the immense

security risks and reconstruction of international power dynamics it enables.

What is Liberalism?
 Page |4

Throughout the study of international political relations, there exists a number of theories

which seek to define the means by which states interact with one another. Perhaps the most

pervasive of these theories which accurately define geopolitical interactions today is liberalism.

Derived from the writings of philosophers John Locke and Immanuel Kant as well as from the

economic principles espoused by Adam Smith and David Ricardo, the primary focus and aim of

liberalism is cooperation. Unlike its ‘rival’ theory of realism, the underlying assumption made by

liberalism is that the international system, though populated by states with self-centered interests,

possesses the potential for collaboration should the correct structure exist. This structure is often

made manifest in the international institutions that exist throughout the world today, with the

preeminent example being the United Nations. An international institution is defined as a set of

rules which is known by relevant actors that structure political actors in certain ways. Often,

institutions are organizations which have a specified membership, scope, or presence

internationally in a specific area or interest.

Liberal theories accept the impact of many different types of actors as significant to

international relations: individuals, firms, nongovernmental actors, and states are all considered

to be relevant when it comes to evolving the geopolitical narrative we all experience. Liberalism

concludes that political actors are incredibly complex and that the interests that they pursue are

largely dependent upon the domestic actors within a state. As a whole, liberalism denies the

notion that all international interactions are designed to maintain survival in an anarchic

international system, something realism recognizes as a central tenet of foreign policy. Rather,

adherents to liberalism recognize that the most significant thing a state can do at the domestic

level is maximize utility. Having said this, the easiest way of granting this ability typically comes

through wealth maximization, as specific policies which improve citizen happiness often cost the
 Page |5

government a great deal of money. To this end, liberalism seeks to aid states’ utility

maximization through facilitating cooperation in pursuit of a common good. For example,

climate change presents a significant threat to all people of all nations, thus it should serve as an

effective motivator for cooperation seeing as how the benefits are shared by all.

Within liberalism, there exists three fundamental assumptions about the international

system that define the theory’s reaches:

1. The international system is anarchic, but it is not a war of ‘all against all’ as realists put

it; rather, the primary barrier to solving international issues and the primary catalyst for

disputes is failures in coordination and cooperation between states.

2. States seek to maximize utility or citizen welfare, not power.

3. Power is a different thing in different areas of interactions and contexts. Essentially, no

one strength can serve a state in handling the wide range of disputes it is sure to

encounter (complex interdependence). Different problems require different solutions in

terms of power.

Beneath all three of these assumptions, liberalism asserts that through democratic cooperation

via institutions, all political actors can come to a mutually advantageous position which

leverages their strengths and mitigates the effects of their weaknesses. Interestingly, the first two

claims are largely normative and philosophical, while the third claim is significantly more

objective in nature. Further, liberalism asserts that through the cooperation and improved

communication that institutions facilitate, states have a higher incentive to avoid war and

diplomatically resolve conflict.

 Page |6

Liberals generally operate with the assumption that institutions can play a role in

significantly influencing both domestic and international policy within individual states. To do

this, institutions attempt to do four distinct things. First, they set standards of behavior to reduce

uncertainty about what qualifies as compliance. They do this through the codification of clearly

established international ‘law,’ the ratification of a treaty, or a variety of other means of pressure.

Second, they verify that member nations are compliant with the established standard of behavior

or rule set out for them by the institution. Within the scope of nuclear power, the verification of

compliance with pre-established international norms and law plays a significant role in

maintaining the safe expansion of the technology. Verification of compliance within institutions

can be done by a variety of methods ranging from trust-based state self-reporting to on-site

inspections by professional, impartial investigators. Third, institutions reduce decision making

costs by establishing a procedure for how decisions will be made ahead of time. Forth,

institutions resolve disputes among actors non-violently. With something the massive potential

for destruction and misuse nuclear power presents, these four factors are all incredibly critical to

the preservation of worldwide stability should nuclear expand in the coming years.

All things considered, liberalism does not see a perfect world nor is it deluded by the

impression that obtaining perfection is possible. Rather, liberalism posits that through creating

chains of interdependence between nations via institutions, each country’s welfare will be linked

to that of others, making it personally beneficial for an actor to pursue common goods.

Liberalism imagines the potential for progress: they make it clear that only through international

institutions can global challenges be given global solutions.

Nuclear Power and Liberalism

 Page |7

In considering the ideas espoused by liberalism, it is clear why such a powerful tool for

both good and evil as nuclear power would require extensive collaboration and oversight from

the international community. The issue of nuclear power brings with it an extensive past which

has contributed to the worldwide fear of pursuing it as a large-scale source for energy

production. Nuclear power presents a variety of global and domestic security risks which must

be considered extensively. Perhaps the largest reason for modern society’s apprehension in

developing nuclear power comes through an indirect use of the nuclear material: power plants

present a direct pathway towards the acquisition of nuclear weapons should a country decide to

pursue such nefarious ends. Further, past nuclear accidents as recent as the Fukushima Daiichi

meltdown in March of 2011 have significantly strained public confidence in nuclear power.

Despite these worries, many of them are avoidable given the proper care, consideration,

and oversight that liberalism champions. For example, the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster,

which was caused in part due to the earthquake and tsunami that had recently hit Japan in 2011,

was found to be entirely avoidable after further inspection by the UN International Atomic

Energy Agency (IAEA).5 Statements released by both TEPCO, the operating agency and owners

of the plant, and the Japanese government later confirmed this.6 Further, an exploration of the

1986 Chernobyl meltdown in Ukraine “was the result of a flawed design of the reactor, which

was operated by inadequately trained personnel.”7 The Chernobyl meltdown presented the first

significant nuclear related accident at such a scale that the world had ever seen. The UN response

to the matter was swift and effective:

5
World Nuclear Association. "Fukushima Daiichi Accident.” October 2018. Accessed April 12, 2019.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-accident.aspx.
6
Ibid.
7
United Nations. "Atomic Energy." Accessed April 12, 2019. https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/atomic-
energy/.
 Page |8

After the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear accident, international cooperation in nuclear safety
was significantly intensified: four international safety conventions, two Codes of
Conduct, fundamental safety principles and a body of globally recognized IAEA Safety
Standards were developed and adopted. The IAEA's Safety Standards reflect an
international consensus on what constitutes a high level of safety for protecting people
and the environment from the harmful effects of ionizing radiation.8
When considering the implications of each of these events given a liberal framework for

analysis, it is no surprise that the United Nations as well as various other international

organizations have stepped in at the defense of nuclear. Liberalism would posit that through

effective international institutions, coordination and cooperation would allow for a mutually

advantageous position for all parties involved. For the most part, this has been the case. As

mentioned before, the IAEA has set extensive standards for behavior, verifies compliance,

established a protocol for decision making, and has so far seen no significant disputes concerning

power production in plants alone. It appears that the role of institutions has done a great deal, at

least in terms of making nuclear safer, since 1986. Between 1986 and 2018, 57 nuclear accidents

have occurred worldwide, with over two-thirds of them occurring in the United States. 9 With the

exception of Fukushima, none of these encounters have led to significant loss of life or property

damage, largely due to the safety protocols set by the United Nations. 10 In fact, in a study

published by NASA in 2013 found that nuclear power has prevented approximately 1.8 million

deaths worldwide between 1976 and 2009.11 The same study came to the conclusion that due to

the widescale safety measures taken by worldwide watchdogs like the United Nations, nuclear

energy ranks last in death rate per energy unit per year of the seven major sources of power

production worldwide.12

8
Ibid.
9
Sovacool, BK. "A Critical Evaluation of Nuclear Power and Renewable Electricity in Asia." Taylor & Francis.
2018. Accessed April 12, 2019. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00472331003798350.
10
Ibid.
11
NASA. "Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power." ACS
Publications. March 2013. Accessed April 12, 2019. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es3051197?source=cen.
12
Ibid. These sources of energy include biomass, natural gas, peat, solar, hydro, wind, and nuclear.
 Page |9

Although institutions have largely succeeded in maintaining nuclear safety in terms of

power production, the opposite is true when it comes to nuclear proliferation. Perhaps the

greatest threat and argument against the spread of nuclear power arises from the realist notion of

power maximization. Within the international system, realists argue that a maximization of

national defense power within one state will ultimately lead to other nations building up their

national defense power to prevent the initial state from gaining a relative advantage. This in turn

makes the international system less safe as a whole. Liberals have tried to combat this notion

within the nuclear issue through various treaties, the most notable of which is the Treaty on the

Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The document, “whose objective is to prevent the

spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses

of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and

complete disarmament,” was first enacted in 1970.13 Since then, 191 states have signed the

treaty, including the five nuclear-weapon states.14

Despite serving as the shining example of liberal theory at work in terms of ensuring safe

nuclear energy production worldwide, the treaty is far from perfect at ensuring nations do not

obtain nuclear weapons of mass destruction. In 40 years, five countries have developed nuclear

weapons with the help of nuclear energy technology. These countries — India, Pakistan, North

Korea, South Africa, and Israel — were directly in defiance of the treaty and four of the five

have continued their nuclear programs to this day.15 Additionally, the World Nuclear Association

reports that in “2002 Iran's previously undeclared nuclear facilities became the subject of IAEA

inquiry, which established that it appeared to be in violation of its NPT safeguards agreement. It

13
United Nations. Atomic Energy.
14
The five nuclear-weapon states in terms of the NPT are the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France,
and China.
15
South Africa destroyed its stockpile upon ratifying the NPT. Israel has so far maintained a policy of deliberate
ambiguity in relation to its nuclear stockpile, with no confirmed nuclear tests having been reported.
 P a g e | 10

continued uranium enrichment in defiance of the UN Security Council.” 16 Further, they write that

“Iraq to 1991 attempted to enrich indigenous uranium to weapons-grade material, in violation of

NPT and safeguards obligations. Syria constructed a nuclear reactor in breach of its NPT

obligations.”17 At this example, it appears that the lofty goals proposed by liberalism have largely

fallen short. Where liberalism expected acceptance, abidance, and peace, it received a

disproportionate power restructuring and colossal destabilization of the Middle East.

Furthermore, the fact that surrounding nations have generally followed the NPT has left them at

a genuine defensive disadvantage should conflict break out between a nation in possession of

nuclear warheads.

Altogether, the relative failure of the NPT has delegitimized all three of the primary

assumptions made by liberalism. First and foremost, it demonstrates the shortcomings of

diplomatic solutions in maintaining peace, though it is up for discussion if whether the lack of

nuclear weapon use is largely a result of cooperation or simply self-preservation. Further, the

second principle is violated in that states which have ignored the treaty have altogether pursued

raw, brutish power maximization. Finally, the notion that power must be understood in terms of

complex interdependence has largely been ignored, as the sole power source and relevance of

North Korea on the international stage is fueled by their possession of nuclear weapons.

Nations ascribing to liberalism have largely failed in their role of actively policing the

spread of proliferation due to the insignificant, poorly designed sanctions they have placed on

violators. For example, the United States, in cooperation with the UN, has frequently utilized

16
World Nuclear Association. "Nuclear Proliferation Case Studies." March 2019. Accessed April 12, 2019.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/non-proliferation/appendices/nuclear-
proliferation-case-studies.aspx.
17
Ibid.
 P a g e | 11

economic sanctions as a means of discouraging the production of weapons of mass destruction.

Despite this, a study done by Bob Carbaugh of Washington University reports:

…targets of US sanctions, such as North Korea and Iran, have not significantly altered
their policies when confronted by sanctions. A study by economists at the Peterson
Institute for International Economics found that since 1970, unilateral US sanctions have
achieved foreign policy goals only 13% of the time. The history of economic sanctions
has shown that, in many cases, only military action can play a decisive role in forcing a
country to modify its policies.18
In addition to this, Carbaugh remarks that “…sanctions will not likely prevent a determined

country, such as Iran, from eventually developing a nuclear weapon,” a discouraging fact

considering economic retribution is liberalism’s primary source of punishment for non-compliant

actors.19 To the nation not concerned with maximizing its citizens welfare via economic success

(North Korea) or a nation which can thrive economically while being independent from

institutional support (Iran), liberal theory falls apart in terms of conflict resolution and

bargaining. Altogether, the threat of proliferation describes the tremendous instability that

liberalism can lead to in the international system when taken for granted by relevant actors.

Conclusion
Within the scope of this paper, nuclear power has demonstrated two entirely different

applications of the liberal ideology, though given the relative success and failure that the theory

has experienced it is certainly safe to conclude that it is not perfect in its prediction or control of

international actor behavior. Despite this, the continued development of nuclear power will

undoubtedly require international cooperation and significant oversight moving into the future.

As expressed before, the wide-spread presence of nuclear power cannot exist across the world

without active policing not only from independent institutions, but also from self-interested

nations themselves. The fact that liberalism does not prevent all examples of nuclear
18
Carbaugh, Bob. "Sanctions and Nuclear Proliferation." CEPR Policy Portal. February 2009. Accessed April 12,
2019. https://voxeu.org/article/sanctions-and-nuclear-proliferation.
19
Ibid.
 P a g e | 12

militarization is certainly a valid concern, though the theory is certainly not without its benefits

as well.

Beneath the concerns and failures of liberalism, there exists an expose of the flaws

present within the modern implementation of the theory. The example presented by various

states’ complete refusal to abide by NPT standards demonstrates how it is virtually impossible to

ensure that all states will take on a liberal foreign policy. To this end, the inability to punish

defectors effectively is the ultimate issue present with liberalism in its current application. This is

not to say that effective retribution cannot be carried out, though for an issue as life-threatening

as nuclear proliferation it certainly is alarming that an issue persists. Until institutions become

strong enough to demonstrate their lack of tolerance for dissenters, international laws, norms,

and institutions will always be exploited by small groups or individual actors.

In the background of the worries of nuclear plant safety and proliferation, there exists the

drive towards sustainable power development at the root of human society. Nuclear power

unquestionably presents a viable answer to this question. One thing is clear though: without

active cooperation and communication, progress will never be made. It is up to the international

community — the states, institutions, and individuals — to make a nuclear future a possibility.
 P a g e | 13

Bibliography

Carbaugh, Bob. "Sanctions and Nuclear Proliferation." CEPR Policy Portal. February 2009.
Accessed April 12, 2019. https://voxeu.org/article/sanctions-and-nuclear-proliferation.

Yancy, George. "Noam Chomsky on the Prospects for Nuclear War under Trump." E. July 10,
2017. Accessed April 12, 2019. https://conversations.e-flux.com/t/noam-chomsky-on-the-
prospects-for-nuclear-war-under-trump/6795.

Hackett, Robert. "Noam Chomsky: 'In a Couple of Generations, Organized Human Society May
Not Survive.'" National Observer. February 14, 2019. Accessed April 12, 2019.
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/02/12/features/noam-chomsky-couple-
generations-organized-human-society-may-not-survive-has-be.

NASA. "Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected
Nuclear Power." ACS Publications. March 2013. Accessed April 12, 2019.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es3051197?source=cen.

NASA. "Global Climate Change: Effects." NASA. November 28, 2018. Accessed April 12,
2019. https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/.

Sovacool, BK. "A Critical Evaluation of Nuclear Power and Renewable Electricity in Asia."
Taylor & Francis. 2018. Accessed April 12, 2019.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00472331003798350.

United Nations. "Atomic Energy." Accessed April 12, 2019.

https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/atomic-energy/.

World Nuclear Association. "Fukushima Daiichi Accident." October 2018. Accessed April 12,
2019. http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-
plants/fukushima-accident.aspx.

World Nuclear Association. "Nuclear Proliferation Case Studies." March 2019. Accessed April
12, 2019. http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/non-
proliferation/appendices/nuclear-proliferation-case-studies.aspx.