State Participation in Nonproliferation Regime Networks Sarah Laderman 2017 Winter PONI Conference

Research Overview & Motivation Utilize network science to assess efficacy of Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and Nuclear Weapon Free Zones (NWFZs) As nonproliferation networks become larger and more connected, global nuclear proliferation levels should decrease Motivated by Ban Treaty negotiations Should research past multilateral nuclear nonproliferation treaties to inform future efforts

Source: UN Office for Disarmament Affairs, https://www. un

Network Design Affiliation Network: nodes are states and treaties

Network Design Affiliation Network: nodes are states and treaties NPT NWFZ State 1 1 State 2 State 3 State 4

Network Design Affiliation Network: nodes are states and treaties NWFZ NPT State 1 State 2 State 3 State 4 NPT NWFZ State 1 1 State 2 State 3 State 4

Network Calculations Eigenvector Centrality (EVC): measures centrality of node and its connected nodes State centrality depends on centrality of treaties of which it is a member Treaty centrality depends on centrality of member states Two different tests using EVC Effects on individual state proliferation Effects on global proliferation

Test 1: State Proliferation For each year, correlated state EVC with state proliferation level Hypothesis: as state EVC increases, state proliferation should decrease State proliferation level coding: 0  No Activity 1  Explore 2  Pursue 3  Acquire Sources: Sonali Singh and Christopher R. Way, “The Correlates of Nuclear Proliferation: A Quantitative Test,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 48, no. 6 (December 2004) Christopher R. Way, “Nuclear Proliferation Dates,” June 12, 2012, http://falcon.arts.cornell.edu/crw12.

Test 1: Data Supports Hypothesis

Test 2: Global Proliferation Over all years, correlated treaty EVC with global proliferation levels Hypothesis: as treaty EVC increases, global proliferation should decrease Global proliferation level is the sum of all individual state proliferation levels in the network

Test 2: Data Partially Supports Hypothesis **p < 0.01; n = 34 NPT NWFZ EVC / Global Proliferation Correlation Coefficient 0.462** -0.666** NPT results do not support hypothesis Positive correlation, statistically significant NWFZ results support hypothesis Negative correlation, statistically significant

Conclusions NPT and NWFZ membership seems to be a self-enforcing mechanism encouraging nonproliferation tendencies in the individual state As NWFZs become more integrated into the global nonproliferation treaty regime, NWFZs gain in efficacy No evidence for NPT effect on global nonproliferation norms

Policy Implications Demonstrates the utility of network science for nuclear nonproliferation policy analysis NPT negotiations likely more effective on case-by-case basis Negative implications for Ban Treaty Spreading NWFZs to more regions may aid in global nonproliferation Positive implication for NWFZs, e.g., Middle Eastern NWFZ

Acknowledgements and Disclaimer Contact Information Sarah Laderman sjladerman@berkeley.edu Acknowledgements and Disclaimer I would like to thank my Complexity Group co-researchers from (1) UC Berkeley: Bethany Goldblum, Elie Katzenson, Nathanial Mahowald, Yara Mubarak, Suchismita Padhy, Lakshmi Ramesh, Andrew Reddie, Christopher Stewart, Austin Wright; (2) National Securities Technologies, LLC: Hart Kornell; and (3) Sandia National Laboratories: Zoe Gastelum. This material is based upon work supported by the Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration under Award Number DE-NA0003180. Disclaimer: This presentation was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.

Backup Slides

Test 1: 1974 Full Data 1974 networks support hypothesis Signature Network Correlation Coefficient = -0.173 (p = 0.041) Ratification Network Correlation Coefficient = -0.249 (p = 0.003)

Test 1: Full Results

Test 2: Full Data Treaty EVCs versus Global Proliferation Levels

Correlation Coefficient Test 2: Full Results **p < 0.01; n = 34 NPT EVC / Global Proliferation Correlation Coefficient NWFZ EVC / Signature Network 0.462** -0.666** Ratification Network 0.486** -0.492** Data partially supports hypothesis NPT Positive correlations, statistical significance Ratification has a less positive correlation than signature NWFZ Negative correlations, statistical significance Signature has a more negative correlation than ratification