Preview

RSUH/RGGU Bulletin Series "Political Science. History. International Relations"

Advanced search

Between zero and one: liminality of nuclear threshold states

https://doi.org/10.28995/2073-6339-2024-6-12-25

Abstract

The existence of nuclear threshold states as a phenomenon is subject to revisiting through the prism of a general scientific notion of liminality. This type of actors is represented by the nations technically possessing a full nuclear fuel cycle but stopping short of making a decision to militarize their nuclear programmes. An advantage of the utilized approach consists in its transdisciplinary format: considering the problem at the interface of philosophy, political science and even literature studies assists in uncovering its multidimensional nature as well as in the mutual enrichment of the named areas of knowledge. A literature review – predominantly comprising secondary sources in English – has demonstrated but a sporadic application of the liminality concept in the International Relations and Security Studies scholarship (including nonproliferation of nuclear weapons). It has been established that a nuclear test is a specific ritualized act symbolizing the transition of threshold states into the cohort of de facto nuclear states. The duality of such a gesture consists, on the one hand, in challenging an instituted taboo, and, on the other hand, in a metamorphosis into a qualitatively new condition. At the same time, even such an example of transformation of the status does not mean that a nation overcomes liminality. This is due to the lack of the mechanisms – both informal and adopted in the international law – and the precedents of the transition by a de facto nuclear state into the club of the nuclear weapons states. Manifold dimensions of liminality are singled out and characterized: temporal, technological, strategic, operational, and identification dimensions. With the help of the case studies featuring the threshold states in the Asia-Pacific, it is demonstrated that latent nuclear nations can exist in this liminal space for decades, even benefitting from their transient condition. That being said, the heterogeneity of the space of liminality finds expression in the presence of various threshold actors on its different stages.

About the Author

G. V. Toropchin
Novosibirsk State Technical University; Tomsk State University
Russian Federation

Gleb V. Toropchin, Cand. of Sci. (History), associate professor

20, K. Marx Av., Novosibirsk, 630073



References

1. Abraham, I. (2006), “The ambivalence of nuclear histories”, Osiris, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 49– 65.

2. Abraham, I. (2010), “ ‘Who’s next?’: Nuclear ambivalence and the contradictions of nonproliferation policy”, Economic and Political Weekly, vol. 45, no. 43, pp. 48–56.

3. Alekseeva, T.A., Mineev, A.P. and Loshkarev, I.D. (2016), “ ‘The land of confusion’: quantum physics in IR theory?”, MGIMO Review of International Relations, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 7–16, available at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/zemlya-smyateniyakvantovaya-teoriya-v-mezhdunarodnyh-otnosheniyah (Accessed 25 Sept. 2024).

4. Balduk, J. (2008), On liminality. Conceptualizing “In between-ness”. Master Thesis of Human Geography, Nijmengen, Netherlands.

5. Baquè, G. (2022), “Confronting marginality: Human and nonhuman resilience in the landscape of disaster”, Rivista di studi letterari e culturali, no. 9, pp. 19–31.

6. Behravesh, M. (2018), “State revisionism and ontological (in)security in international politics: The complicated case of Iran and its nuclear behavior”, Journal of International Relations and Development, vol. 21, pp. 836–857.

7. Bell, M.Z. and Macfarlane, A. (2022), “ ‘Fixing’ the nuclear waste problem? The new political economy of spent fuel management in the United States”, Energy Research & Social Science, vol. 91, pp. 102–728.

8. Diulina, Yu.M. (2013), “Threshold states in the nuclear non-proliferation regime as a global problem of the modernity”, in Natsional’nyi universitet Evrazii imeni L.N. Gumileva [L.N. Gumilev Eurasian National University], available at: https:// dspace.enu.kz/bitstream/handle/data/6680/problema-sovremennosti.pdf (Accessed 25 Sept. 2024).

9. Fusu, L.I. (2018), “The concept of liminality: approaches, the essence of the concept, the characteristics of manifestation in society at the present stage”, Kant, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 143–148.

10. Harrington, A. and Englert, M. (2014), “How much is enough? The politics of technology and weaponless nuclear deterrence”, in Mayer, M., Carpes, M. and Knoblich, R., eds., in The global politics of science and technology, vol. 2: Global power shift, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany, pp. 287–302.

11. Higgott, R.A. and Kim, R.N. (1997), “The international politics of liminality: relocating Australia in the Asia Pacific”, Australian Journal of Political Science, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 169–186.

12. Mälksoo, M. (2012), “The challenge of liminality for international relations theory”, Review of International Studies, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 481–494.

13. Rozelle, L. (2010), “Resurveying DeLillo’s ‘white space on map’: Liminality and communitas in underworld”, Studies in the Novel, vol. 42, no. 4, pp. 443–452.

14. Smart, I. (1978), “Janus: The nuclear God”, The World Today, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 118–127.

15. Spennemann, D.H.R. (2016), “Keeping It out of the open: The production and collections history of Asterix und das Atomkraftwerk as an example of the liminality of underground literature”, Leipziger Jahrbuch für Buchgeschichte, vol. 24, pp. 161–201.

16. Teodorescu, B. and Călin, R.A. (2015), “The base articulations of the liminality concept”, Review of European Studies, vol. 7, no. 12, pp. 97–102.

17. Wilkins, T.S. and Abbondanza, G. (2022), “What makes an awkward power? Recurrent patterns and defining characteristics”, in Abbondanza, G. and Wilkins, T.S., eds. Awkward powers: Escaping traditional great and middle power theory. Global political transitions, Palgrave Macmillan, Singapore, pp. 375–404.


Review

For citations:


Toropchin G.V. Between zero and one: liminality of nuclear threshold states. RSUH/RGGU Bulletin Series "Political Science. History. International Relations". 2024;(6):12-25. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.28995/2073-6339-2024-6-12-25

Views: 89


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 2073-6339 (Print)