JEJU, South Korea -- Adultery or promiscuity: Which is worse? Oddly enough, that question hung over discussions at the United Nations-ROK conference* that convened last week at this South Korean resort. Those of us debating "changing security dynamics and their implications for disarmament and nonproliferation" used that question as a metaphor for the organizing principles of the international system.
Although it sounds gratuitously provocative, this question goes to the heart of the most basic question in international diplomacy: Is it better to have international regimes that are weak but inclusive, or rigorous and exclusive?
Should we aim for the lowest common denominator -- which typically means stripping an institution or treaty of its "teeth" and render it unable to enforce noncompliance -- or do we set the bar higher, demanding that states face real costs if they break the rules and, consequently, risk leaving some governments out of new international institutions?
With your current subscription plan you can comment on stories. However, before writing your first comment, please create a display name in the Profile section of your subscriber account page.