Papers by Joseph O'Mahoney
The Nonproliferation Review, Sep 14, 2020
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has been one of the most successful international secu... more The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has been one of the most successful international security institutions. However, its success was not inevitable and in fact it faced a serious threat only a few years after it came into force in 1970. India's "peaceful nuclear explosion" (PNE) in May 1974 rocked the nuclear nonproliferation regime and cast doubt on the NPT. And yet in the two years after the PNE, several significant countries ratified the treaty. Why did states that had been notable holdouts from the NPT, like Italy, Japan, and South Korea, ratify the treaty soon after the Indian nuclear test? This paper finds that the PNE galvanized pro-NPT forces in the US and Canada, leading to changes in nonproliferation policy. In particular, it led them to threaten to withhold access to nuclear technology and materials unless the holdouts ratified the NPT. It also motivated Henry Kissinger to change his secret advice to Japan that the US did not want Japan to ratify the NPT in order to keep the People's Republic of China unsure about Japan's nuclear intentions.
Contemporary Security Policy, Sep 16, 2021
We introduce "antifragility" as a conceptual framework to understand the impact of occasional vio... more We introduce "antifragility" as a conceptual framework to understand the impact of occasional violations of regime norms on the health of respective regimes. Contrary to the prevailing understanding of norm violation as a strictly negative phenomenon that leaves regimes damaged, we show that normative deviance is, under certain conditions, a stressor that helps predominantly antifragile systems learn, improve, and adapt to changes in both internal and external environments. We apply this conceptual framework to the case of the NPT regime and the prominent violations of its nonproliferation norms by India in the 1970s (as a "contestation from outside") and Iraq in the 1990s (as a "contestation from within"). Our findings question the prevailing catastrophizing narrative about the strictly negative impact of norm violations on regime stability and contribute to contemporary scholarly debates about norm dynamics within the NPT.
CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Jun 2, 2021
It is important to note that I did not build annotation into the writing of the article from the ... more It is important to note that I did not build annotation into the writing of the article from the start; I annotated after the article had already been published. 2 I say "seemed" here because in fact there are analytic transparency benefits to annotation beyond just providing full source text. See below for more on this point.
Why do so many states adopt a position of non-recognition of gains from war? Despite being proven... more Why do so many states adopt a position of non-recognition of gains from war? Despite being proven ineffective as a coercive tool or deterrent, the international community has actively withheld recognition in numerous instances of territorial conquest since the 1930s. Joseph O'Mahoney systematically analyses 21 case studies--including the Manchurian Crisis, the Turkish invasion of Cyprus and Russia's annexation of Crimea--to explore why so many states have adopted a policy of non-recognition of the spoils of war. By drawing on historical sources including recently declassified archival documents, he evaluates states' decision-making. He develops a new theory for non-recognition as a symbolic sanction aimed at reproducing common knowledge of the rules of international behaviour.
International Theory, 2015
The idea of a motive behind an action is an important part of the debate around the idea of socia... more The idea of a motive behind an action is an important part of the debate around the idea of social causation or of causation in political science. In practice most explanations of behavior in political science rely, whether implicitly or explicitly, on some attribution of motive to actors. However, motive and the attribution of motive to individuals and especially corporate actors, like the state, is rarely theorized in empirical studies, either in terms of what it means conceptually, or in terms of how attribution of motive is dealt with methodologically. This paper explores some of these issues and apply them to the practice of political science, with particular reference to examples in International Relations. In particular, this paper articulates the fundamental problem of motive attribution, that we cannot introspect the motives of other actors, and lays out its implications. There are three possible methodological responses to this fundamental problem; 1) assume or deduce a po...
Journal of Global Security Studies, 2017
Starting with the Stimson Doctrine in the early 1930s, the international community has adopted, o... more Starting with the Stimson Doctrine in the early 1930s, the international community has adopted, on numerous occasions, a policy of nonrecognition in response to international boundary changes gained through the use of force. Why? This article uses an investigation of the Manchurian Crisis to reconceptualize nonrecognition as a symbolic sanction against a norm violation. Existing accounts often view symbolic sanctions like nonrecognition as either failed attempts at coercion or mere posturing for domestic audiences. Against this view, this article explains how collective symbolic sanctions create or recreate common knowledge of what the rules of international behavior are in the face of a lack of effective rule enforcement. This common knowledge, or intersubjective understanding, shapes future expectations and interpretations. Nonrecognition of the spoils of war is thus a means to reinforce the norm of nonaggression within international society by reestablishing a shared valuation of the rule.
European Journal of International Relations, 2013
When and under what conditions do norms and rules change? Dominant conceptions of institutional c... more When and under what conditions do norms and rules change? Dominant conceptions of institutional change in International Relations theory are based on the idea that it is the result of a shift in power: new actors become able to impose their vision on the world. However, the source of change need not be the power or preferences of actors in society, but could come from the internal dynamics of the rule system governing these actors. This article develops recent research in this area by linking Sandholtz’s model of norm change to recent dynamic institutionalist work and exploring and specifying particular mechanisms, or types of tensions, in rule systems that produce change. Institutions and complexes of rules exhibit rule tensions: inconsistencies, ambiguities, and inadequacies that can lead to disputes over the application of the rules. Actors then have to solve problems or disputes over rule interpretation. Change can thus occur without the introduction of new actors or a shift in ...
Conflict Management and Peace Science, 2013
The Nonproliferation Review, 2020
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has been one of the most successful international secu... more The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) has been one of the most successful international security institutions. However, its success was not inevitable and in fact it faced a serious threat only a few years after it came into force in 1970. India's "peaceful nuclear explosion" (PNE) in May 1974 rocked the nuclear nonproliferation regime and cast doubt on the NPT. And yet in the two years after the PNE, several significant countries ratified the treaty. Why did states that had been notable holdouts from the NPT, like Italy, Japan, and South Korea, ratify the treaty soon after the Indian nuclear test? This paper finds that the PNE galvanized pro-NPT forces in the US and Canada, leading to changes in nonproliferation policy. In particular, it led them to threaten to withhold access to nuclear technology and materials unless the holdouts ratified the NPT. It also motivated Henry Kissinger to change his secret advice to Japan that the US did not want Japan to ratify the NPT in order to keep the People's Republic of China unsure about Japan's nuclear intentions.
International Theory, 2015
"Why did they do that?" is one of the most common questions in International Relations. However, ... more "Why did they do that?" is one of the most common questions in International Relations. However, we cannot access other people's reasons for action the same way that we perceive our own; we cannot introspect the reasons of other actors. This paper provides a unifying framework that delineates different types of knowledge claims regarding reason attribution. There are three possible methodological responses; 1) assume a possible reason and explain behavior in terms of that reason; 2) avoid the direct attribution of reason to individuals and locate explanatory leverage at an analytical level beyond the individual actor reason; and 3) use empirical evidence to adjudicate between possible reason. Excessive skepticism of evidence of reasons lessens our understanding of the causes of action. When using empirical evidence, contrary to existing arguments the paper shows that private settings do not systematically favor the true revelation of reasons. The paper also proposes a general principle, consilience, that allows evaluation of empirical claims of reason attribution that subsumes several existing methodological considerations, organizes them, and gives a consistent means of choosing between alternative reason attributions.
International Organization, 2017
Do normative arguments change what political actors do and if so, how? Rather than using the pure... more Do normative arguments change what political actors do and if so, how? Rather than using the pure force of abstract moral reasoning, states often try to move the locus of contestation to an arena where they can make practical progress—the evidence or the empirical facts in support of their argument. This paper analyzes how states try to bolster their position first by constructing an argument in which an action represents part of their argument and then by performing that action to make the argument seem more convincing. I call this mechanism rhetorical adduction. The paper challenges theories of communication that deny a causal role to the content of normative arguments and diverges from a leading view on argumentation that arguments have their effects through persuasion. Integrating strategic argumentation theory with theory from psychology about how people make choices based on compelling reasons rather than cost-benefit analysis, I also use theory from sociology on how people re...
Contemporary Security Policy
We introduce "antifragility" as a conceptual framework to understand the impact of occasional vio... more We introduce "antifragility" as a conceptual framework to understand the impact of occasional violations of regime norms on the health of respective regimes. Contrary to the prevailing understanding of norm violation as a strictly negative phenomenon that leaves regimes damaged, we show that normative deviance is, under certain conditions, a stressor that helps predominantly antifragile systems learn, improve, and adapt to changes in both internal and external environments. We apply this conceptual framework to the case of the NPT regime and the prominent violations of its nonproliferation norms by India in the 1970s (as a "contestation from outside") and Iraq in the 1990s (as a "contestation from within"). Our findings question the prevailing catastrophizing narrative about the strictly negative impact of norm violations on regime stability and contribute to contemporary scholarly debates about norm dynamics within the NPT.
Contemporary Security Policy, 2021
We introduce “antifragility” as a conceptual framework to understand the impact of occasional vio... more We introduce “antifragility” as a conceptual framework to understand the impact of occasional violations of regime norms on the health of respective regimes. Contrary to the prevailing understanding of norm violation as a strictly negative phenomenon that leaves regimes damaged, we show that normative deviance is, under certain conditions, a stressor that helps predominantly antifragile systems learn, improve, and adapt to changes in both internal and external environments. We apply this conceptual framework to the case of the NPT regime and the prominent violations of its nonproliferation norms by India in the 1970s (as a “contestation from outside”) and Iraq in the 1990s (as a “contestation from within”). Our findings question the prevailing catastrophizing narrative about the strictly negative impact of norm violations on regime stability and contribute to contemporary scholarly debates about norm dynamics within the NPT.
Do normative arguments change what political actors do and if so, how? Rather than using the pure... more Do normative arguments change what political actors do and if so, how? Rather than using the pure force of abstract moral reasoning, states often try to move the locus of contestation to an arena where they can make practical progress—the evidence or the empirical facts in support of their argument. This paper analyzes how states try to bolster their position first by constructing an argument in which an action represents part of their argument and then by performing that action to make the argument seem more convincing. I call this mechanism rhetorical adduction. The paper challenges theories of communication that deny a causal role to the content of normative arguments and diverges from a leading view on argumentation that arguments have their effects through persuasion. Integrating strategic argumentation theory with theory from psychology about how people make choices based on compelling reasons rather than cost-benefit analysis, I also use theory from sociology on how people resolve morally complex situations through the performance of " reality tests. " I illustrate the mechanism using a case from the Indo-Pakistani war of 1971 when initial resistance to recognizing the putative state of Bangladesh after India's invasion of East Pakistan was reversed as a result of an argument that Indian troop withdrawal meant that international norms were not violated.
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2000
'Why did they do that?' is one of the most common questions in International 7 Relations. However... more 'Why did they do that?' is one of the most common questions in International 7 Relations. However, we cannot access other people's reasons for action the same way 8 that we perceive our own; we cannot introspect the reasons of other actors. This paper 9 provides a unifying framework that delineates different types of knowledge claims 10 regarding reason attribution. There are three possible methodological responses: 11 (1) assume a possible reason and explain behavior in terms of that reason; avoid 12 the direct attribution of reason to individuals and locate explanatory leverage 13 at an analytical level beyond the individual actor reason; and (3) use empirical 14 evidence to adjudicate between possible reason. Excessive skepticism of 15 evidence of reasons lessens our understanding of the causes of action. When 16 using empirical evidence, contrary to existing arguments, the paper shows that 17 private settings do not systematically favor the true revelation of reasons. The paper 18 also proposes a general principle, consilience, that allows evaluation of empirical 19 claims of reason attribution that subsumes several existing methodological 20 considerations, organizes them, and gives a consistent means of choosing 21 between alternative reason attributions. 22 Keywords: philosophy of science; epistemology; methodology; reasons for 23 action; explanation 24 'Why did they do that?' is one of the most common questions that political 25 scientists seek to answer. The idea of a reason behind an action is an 26 important part of the debate surrounding causation in the social sciences 27 and in International Relations (IR). 1 The word 'cause' originally meant a 28 reason for an action, coming from the Latin word causa meaning 'purpose' 29 or 'reason' (Martin 2011, 30). In practice, most explanations of behavior in 30 political science rely, whether implicitly or explicitly, on some attribution of 1 Not all claims of social science causation involve attributing reasons for action, as I show below.
Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 2014
What explains the global variation in laws criminalizing homosexual conduct? Recent research has ... more What explains the global variation in laws criminalizing homosexual conduct? Recent research has claimed that British colonialism is largely responsible for the criminalization of homosexuality around the world. This article utilizes a newly constructed dataset that includes up-to-date data on 185 countries to assess this claim. We find that British colonies are much more likely to have criminalization of homosexual conduct laws than other colonies or other states in general. This result holds after controlling for other variables that might be expected to influence the likelihood of repressive lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights legislation. However, we also find that the evidence in favour of the claim that British imperialism 'poisoned' societies against homosexuality is weak. British colonies do not systematically take longer to decriminalize homosexual conduct than other European colonies.
Uploads
Papers by Joseph O'Mahoney