The Foreign Service Journal, December 2009

D E C E M B E R 2 0 0 9 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 41 regimes be “nondiscriminatory.” So nations with a clear re- spect for the rule of law and a history of scrupulously com- plying with their obligations will be subject to the same requirements as nations with a history of violating their ob- ligations, whether openly or clandestinely. Punishing Violators In a prescient January 1961 Foreign Affairs article titled “After Detection — What?”, then-Director of the U.S. Arms Control &Disarmament Agency Fred Ikle declared: “The current debate on arms control and disarmament puts great stress on the problem of how to detect violations of whatever agreements may be reached. …Yet detecting vi- olations is not enough. What counts are the political and military consequences of a violation once it has been de- tected, since these alone will determine whether or not the violator stands to gain in the end.” The basic problem Ikle identified nearly half a century ago is one with which we still struggle. Suppose there is a treaty or agreement, and suppose that it has a verification regime. Now also suppose that a party to that treaty or agreement is found to be in violation of its terms. What should the other state parties do about it? This is the dilemma the world’s nations are currently facing in a num- ber of cases. There are two basic kinds of noncompliance: uninten- tional and intentional. If noncompliance is unintentional, one can expect that raising the issue will lead to a resolution. But when noncompliance is intentional, as in the case of North Korea and Iran, seeking a verifiable return to com- pliance will be more difficult. How do you try to bring intentional violators back into compliance? You have to demonstrate to the violator that the cost of noncompliance exceeds the benefit. But you will not know the exact calculation the violator made about the probability its violation would be detected, the re- sources invested in the violation or the exact benefits it ex- pected. What you should know, however, is that imposing costs on the violator will almost certainly be more costly for those F O C U S