The international system of 21st century is complex and continuously changing.

The advent of improved

technology has changed the dynamics of the global order in many ways thus creating new challenges for
the world including climate change and environmental degradation. In terms of war and peace, the major
concern of the world today is the possibility of nuclear wars and its resultant futile impacts. The matter of
nuclear disarmament has always been a concern for the international community since it has faced the
horrors of world war two. Disarmament refers to the reduction or withdrawal of arms, forces and
weapons. It aims to limit and regulate the use of weapons by virtue of dialogues, agreements or mutual
arrangements. The degree of seriousness of the world and great power towards this issue has varied in
different times. It was at its peak when the world was at brink of nuclear confrontation between Soviet
Union and United States during the cold war era. Later, it became vogue and somewhat less focused. But
the issue and threat was always there. Now, when the world is witnessing a series of disagreement
between nuclear powers including the case of Ukraine-Russia war, the threat of nuclear war is again
lingering and the debate on disarmament has gained momentum.

The matter of concern here is that most of the present proponents, scholars and leaders are dealing the
issue on the basis of traditional and conventional approaches of disarmament. The traditional ideas are not
completely irrelevant. They are important in many ways but the possibility of success of the grand
disarmament plan requires new theories and ideas with effective implementation.

The contrasting ideas of Philip Noel-Baker and Hedley Bull have provided the traditional bases on which
the idea of disarmament can be dissected. Baker argued that total disarmament can never be achieved,
until and unless there is believe that all wars can be abolished and every issue is not worth risking a war.
He was in favor of general and complete disarmament to resist any kinds of war, not just nuclear
disarmament. For him, armaments were the cause of wars. Bull, on the other hand, considered it
unrealistic and utopian approach. According to him, general disarmament is not possible because of the
lack of trust between states. In an international society in which war is a possible outcome between
politically competing states, and there is no supreme coercive authority, a state can provide for its security
and protect its interests only by its own armed strength and that of its allies. Disarmament can only occur
if tensions are reduced which is only possible through mutual agreements.

Even though both ideas are based on different opinions but we have witnessed the attempts of
international community to implement both at different stages. For instance, the Global Zero Initiative of
2008 was presented by international policy making elite in order to create a world without any nuclear
weapons by drastically reducing stockpiles of nuclear arsenals. Despite of all the efforts, the results are
still not appealing because mostly the major actors in this regard are focused on proliferation than
disarmament. They are more concerned about state and non state actors that are pursuing nuclear
technology including rogue states such as Iran and extremist groups such as Al-Qaida. Eventually, this is
not convincingly mitigating the risk of nuclear disaster in any regard.

In my opinion, the problem here lies not with the approach, but with the implementation phase that
suffers due to multiple reasons including trust deficit between states or self interest of major actors. The
existence of strong political rivalry and disputes among nations has been a potent hindrance in the way of
disarmament. The traditional theories, approaches and plans provides us the directions but there is need of
a new theory of disarmament that focuses on realistic implementation and finding common grounds on
which states agree to go for disarmament.
It is also true that the most appealing attempt is still the complete elimination of nuclear weapons but as
already discussed it is a long, complex and tiring process that makes it almost impossible. Moreover it is
also believed that complete and instant nuclear disarmament might increase instability in the international
system as nuclear weapons are considered as the one of the reasons due to which World War 3 hasn’t
happened yet because of the concern of mutual vulnerability and disaster.

Elite international policy makers have drawn various plans to find the right solution for the nuclear
problem including Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, Partial
Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, Strategic Arms Limitations Talks/Treaty (SALT) I and II, Treaty of Tlatelolco
etc. The key factors that have undermined the effectiveness of these treaties includes the failure of the
nuclear-weapon states to fulfill their disarmament commitments, the inability to effect universalization of
the treaties, the absence of crucial institutional support, and the erosion of the idea of common purpose
and common responsibility.

For a proper implementation, policy makers, states, non-state and other involved actors must increase the
degree of transparency while devising the plans. Lack of communication and misinformation results in
mistrust in the international environment. For disarmament, stable and informed governmental structures
should take charge with a strong will to achieve their goal of disarmament. Officials should devise proper
norms in this regard based on the needs for the stability of international order. Rational decrease in
number of nuclear arsenal should be preferred equally by all nuclear states and groups that possess
nuclear technology. They should consider their collective responsibility towards humanity. Some of the
ways out of the problem for international actors includes risk reduction measures, renewed commitment
to the total elimination of nuclear weapons, cooperation with the international regime to achieve
success in this regard.

In pursuing both disarmament and non-proliferation it is critically important for all to learn the art of
compromise. A world with very low numbers of nuclear weapons, with very few of them physically
deployed, with practically none of them on high-alert launch status and with every nuclear-armed state
visibly committed to never being the first to use nuclear weapons, would still be very far from being
perfect but it is the initial stage that should be crossed before achieving the ultimate successful endpoint.