Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-pztms Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-17T05:37:43.327Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bibliography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 December 2025

Michal Onderco
Michal Onderco
Affiliation:
Erasmus University Rotterdam
Get access

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
Europe's Nuclear Umbrella
Contesting Nuclear Sharing Since 2010
 , pp. 184 - 224
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2026

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Achen, C. H., & Bartels, L. M. (2017). Democracy for realists: Why elections do not produce responsive government (2nd ed.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Acheson, R. (2021). Banning the bomb, smashing the patriarchy. London: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Acheson, R. (2023). Abolishing state violence: A world beyond bombs, borders, and cages. Chicago: Haymarket Books.Google Scholar
Advisory Council on International Affairs. (2019). Nuclear weapons in a new geopolitical reality. An urgent need for new arms control initiatives. Retrieved from https://aiv-advice.nl/9w9Google Scholar
AfD. (2021). Deutschland – Aber normal. Programm der Alternative für Deutschland für die Wahl zum 20. Deutschen Bundestag. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu/down/originals/2021-1/41953_2021.pdfGoogle Scholar
Akkerman, A., Mudde, C., & Zaslove, A. (2013). How populist are the people? Measuring populist attitudes in voters. Comparative Political Studies, 47(9), 1324–1353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alberque, W. (2017). The NPT and the origins of NATO’s nuclear sharing arrangements. Paris: Institut français des relations internationales.Google Scholar
Aldrich, J. H., Gelpi, C., Feaver, P., Reifler, J., & Sharp, K. T. (2006). Foreign policy and the electoral connection. Annual Review of Political Science, 9(1), 477–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Almond, G. A. (1950). The American people and foreign policy (1st ed.). New York: Harcourt.Google Scholar
Alon-Barkat, S., & Gilad, S. (2016). Political control or legitimacy deficit? Bureaucracies’ symbolic responses to bottom-up public pressures. Policy & Politics, 44(1), 41–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anthony, I., & Janssen, J. (2010). The future of nuclear weapons in NATO. Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung. International Policy Analysis. Retrieved from https://library.fes.de/pdf-files/id/ipa/07151.pdfGoogle Scholar
Arndt, A. C., Horovitz, L., Major, C., Schneider, J., & Wachs, L. (2021). Euro-Atlantic concerns regarding a US ‘Sole Purpose’ policy. Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik Working Paper nr 4. Retrieved from www.swp-berlin.org/publications/products/arbeitspapiere/Working_Paper_European_SP_Perspectives.pdfGoogle Scholar
Arndt, A. C., Horovitz, L., & Onderco, M. (2023). Russia’s failed nuclear coercion against Ukraine. The Washington Quarterly, 46(3), 167–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aspinwall, M. (2007). Government preferences on European integration: An empirical test of five theories. British Journal of Political Science, 37(1), 89–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Astner, K., & Kütt, M. (2024). The treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons: Changing disarmament discourses in Germany? In Kühn, U. (Ed.), Germany and nuclear weapons in the 21st century: Atomic Zeitenwende? (pp. 203–229). Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auel, K., & Christiansen, T. (2015). After Lisbon: National parliaments in the European Union. West European Politics, 38(2), 261–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Auel, K., Eisele, O., & Kinski, L. (2018). What happens in Parliament stays in Parliament? Newspaper coverage of National Parliaments in EU affairs. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 56(3), 628–645.Google Scholar
Baehr, P. R. (1969). Kamerleden en regeringsdelegaties: Een oud probleem opnieuw bezien. Acta Politica, 5(1), 3–15.Google Scholar
Bailey, M. A. (2001). Quiet influence: The representation of diffuse interests on trade policy, 1983–94. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 26(1), 45–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardi, L., Bartolini, S., & Trechsel, A. H. (2014). Responsive and responsible? The role of parties in twenty-first century politics. West European Politics, 37(2), 235–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron, J., & Herzog, S. (2020). Public opinion on nuclear energy and nuclear weapons: The attitudinal nexus in the United States. Energy Research & Social Science, 68, 101567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baum, M. A., & Potter, P. B. K. (2015). War and democratic constraint: How the public influences foreign policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bayram, A. B. (2017). Due deference: Cosmopolitan social identity and the psychology of legal obligation in international politics. International Organization, 71(S1), S137–S163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, J., Jee, H., Budeanu, A., Love, M., & Benson, S. (2024). European strategies in the shadow of Sino-American competition: A text-as-data approach. United States Military Academy, West Point, 7 February. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4758032Google Scholar
Becker, J., & Malesky, E. (2017). The continent or the ‘Grand Large’? Strategic culture and operational burden-sharing in NATO. International Studies Quarterly, 61(1), 163–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, M. S., & Hoffmann, F. R. (2025). Europe’s nuclear trilemma: The difficult and dangerous options for post-American deterrence. Foreign Affairs. Retrieved from www.foreignaffairs.com/europe/europes-nuclear-trilemmaGoogle Scholar
Bender, B., McLeary, P., & Banco, E. (2022). U.S. speeds up plans to store upgraded nukes in Europe. Politico. Retrieved from www.politico.com/news/2022/10/26/u-s-plans-upgraded-nukes-europe-00063675Google Scholar
Bertsou, E., & Caramani, D. (2022). People haven’t had enough of experts: Technocratic attitudes among citizens in nine European democracies. American Journal of Political Science, 66(1), 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertsou, E., & Pastorella, G. (2017). Technocratic attitudes: A citizens’ perspective of expert decision-making. West European Politics, 40(2), 430–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickerton, C., & Accetti, C. I. (2017). Populism and technocracy. In Kaltwasser, C. R., Taggart, P., Espejo, P. O., & Ostiguy, P. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of populism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198803560.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780198803560-e-24Google Scholar
Biddle, S. D., & Feaver, P. (1989). Battlefield nuclear weapons: Issues and options. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Bildt, C., & Sikorski, R. (2010). Next, the tactical nukes. The New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/opinion/02iht-edbildt.htmlGoogle Scholar
Bolton, M., & Minor, E. (2016). The discursive turn arrives in Turtle Bay: The international campaign to abolish nuclear weapons’ operationalization of critical IR theories. Global Policy, 7(3), 385–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boncourt, T., Debos, M., Delori, M., Pelopidas, B., & Wasinski, C. (2020). Que faire des interventions militaires dans le champ académique? Réflexions sur la nécessaire distinction entre expertise et savoir scientifique. 20 & 21. Revue d’histoire, 145(1), 135–150.Google Scholar
Booth, K., & Wheeler, N. J. (2008). The security dilemma: Fear, cooperation and trust in world politics. Basingstoke & New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Borger, J. (2010a). Barack Obama’s hopes for a nuclear-free world fading fast. The Guardian. Retrieved from www.theguardian.com/world/2010/nov/16/barack-obama-nuclear-hopes-fadingGoogle Scholar
Borger, J. (2010b). Five Nato states to urge removal of US nuclear arms in Europe. The Guardian. Retrieved from www.theguardian.com/world/2010/feb/22/nato-states-us-nuclear-arms-europeGoogle Scholar
Born, H., Gill, B., & Hänggi, H. (2011). Governing the bomb: Civilian control and democratic accountability of nuclear weapons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Borrie, J. (2014). Humanitarian reframing of nuclear weapons and the logic of a ban. International Affairs, 90(3), 625–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Börzel, T. A., & Zürn, M. (2021). Contestations of the liberal international order: From liberal multilateralism to postnational liberalism. International Organization, 75(2), 282–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, B., & Düsterhöft, M. (2023). Noisy politics, quiet technocrats? Central banking in contentious times [Unpublished paper]. Retrieved from https://benjaminbraun.org/assets/Noisy_politics_quiet_technocrats.pdfGoogle Scholar
Brauß, H. (2020). Atomdebatte in der SPD: Rolf Mützenich hat Unrecht. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. Retrieved from www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/atom-debatte-in-der-spd-rolf-muetzenich-hat-unrecht-16757761.html?printPagedArticle=true#pageIndex_2Google Scholar
Breen, L., & Eilstrup-Sangiovanni, M. (2024). Issue-adoption and campaign structure in transnational advocacy campaigns: A longitudinal network analysis. European Journal of International Relations, 30(2), 486–516.Google Scholar
Brinkel, B. F. M. (1982). Het IKV in woord en daad. Christen Democratische Verkenningen, 2(18), 60–71.Google Scholar
Brixley-Williams, S. (2020). Report: Differentiated nuclear responsibilities among non-nuclear possessor states – Perspectives from The Hague. A report by The British American Security Information Council & The Institute for Conflict, Cooperation and Security. Retrieved from https://basicint.org/report-differentiated-nuclear-responsibilities-among-non-nuclear-possessor-states-perspectives-from-the-hague/Google Scholar
Brixley-Williams, S., & Wheeler, N. J. (2020). Nuclear responsibilities: A new approach for thinking and talking about nuclear weapons. A report by The British American Security Information Council & The Institute for Conflict, Cooperation and Security. Retrieved from https://basicint.org/report-nuclear-responsibilities-a-new-approach-for-thinking-and-talking-about-nuclear-weapons/Google Scholar
Bronk, J. (2020). German decision to split tornado replacement is a poor one. RUSI Defence Systems (Vol 22). Retrieved from https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/rusi-defence-systems/german-decision-split-tornado-replacement-poor-oneGoogle Scholar
Buddhability. (2022). How I found my purpose: Nuclear abolition edition. Retrieved from https://buddhability.org/podcast/how-i-found-my-purpose-nuclear-abolition-edition/Google Scholar
Budjeryn, M. (2022). Inheriting the bomb: The collapse of the USSR and the nuclear disarmament of Ukraine. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bugos, S. (2019). Turkey shows nuclear weapons interest. Arms Control Today, 49(8), 24–25.Google Scholar
Buijs, P. (2018). The influence of NVMP’s medical-humanitarian arguments on Dutch nuclear weapons politics: The Netherlands can make a difference in reaching a nuclear weapons-free world. Medicine, Conflict and Survival, 34(4), 313–323.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bunde, T. (2022). Lessons (to be) learned? Germany’s Zeitenwende and European security after the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Contemporary Security Policy, 43(3), 516–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunde, T. (2024). Nuclear Zeitenwende(n): Germany and NATO’s nuclear posture. In Kühn, U. (Ed.), Germany and nuclear weapons in the 21st Century: Atomic Zeitenwende? (pp. 87–111). Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunde, T., Hartmann, L., Stärk, F., Carr, R., Erber, C., Hammelehle, J., & Kabus, J. (2020). Zeitenwende, Wendezeiten: Sonderausgabe des Munich Security Report zur deutschen Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik. Retrieved from https://securityconference.org/assets/01_Bilder_Inhalte/03_Medien/02_Publikationen/MSC_Germany_Report_10-2020_De.pdfGoogle Scholar
Bunde, T., & Onderco, M. (2023). Permissive dissensus: The nuclear dimension of the German Zeitenwende. The Nonproliferation Review, 30(4–6), 221–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bündnis 90/Die Grünen. (2002). Grün wirkt! – Unser Wahlprogramm 2002–2006. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu/down/originals/2015-1/41113_2002.pdfGoogle Scholar
Bündnis 90/Die Grünen. (2005). Wahlprogramm 2005. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu/down/originals/41113_2005.pdfGoogle Scholar
Bündnis 90/Die Grünen. (2013). Zeit für den grünen Wandel – teilhaben. einmischen. zukunft schaffen. Bundestagswahlprogramm 2013 von BÜNDNIS 90 / DIE GRÜNEN. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu//down/originals/41113_2013.pdfGoogle Scholar
Bündnis 90/Die Grünen. (2017). Zukunft wird aus Mut gemacht. Bundestagswahlprogramm 2017. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu//down/originals/2017-2/41113_2017.pdfGoogle Scholar
Bündnis 90/Die Grünen. (2021). Deutschland. Alles ist drin. Bundestagswahlprogramm 2021. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu/down/originals/2021-1/41113_2021.pdfGoogle Scholar
Bündnis 90/Die Grünen. (2022). Beschluss (vorläufig). Wertegeleitet, multilateral, handlungsfähig: grüne Friedens- und Sicherheitspolitik in der Zeitenwende. 48. Ordentliche Bundesdelegiertenkonferenz. Retrieved from: https://cms.gruene.de/uploads/documents/Beschluss_FS-12_Wertegeleitet_multilateral_handlungsf%C3%A4hig_gr%C3%BCne_Friedens-_und_Sicherheitspolitik_in_der_Zeitenwen.pdfGoogle Scholar
Bunn, M. E. (2009). Extended deterrence and assurance. Briefing to CSIS workshop, 3 June 2009. In Murdock, C. A. & Yeats, J. M. (Eds.), Exploring the nuclear posture implications of extended deterrence and assurance: Workshop proceedings and key takeaways (pp. 86–94). Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies.Google Scholar
Bunn, M. E. (2022). Extending nuclear deterrence and assuring US allies. In Glaser, C. L., Long, A., & Radzinsky, B. (Eds.), Managing US nuclear operations in the 21st century (pp. 201–240). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Busuioc, E. M., & Lodge, M. (2016). The reputational basis of public accountability. Governance, 29(2), 247–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buteux, P. (1983). The politics of nuclear consultation in NATO 1965–1980. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cameron, J. (2025). Eurodeterrent: A vision for an Anglo-French nuclear force. War on the Rocks. Retrieved from https://warontherocks.com/2025/03/eurodeterrent-a-vision-for-an-anglo-french-nuclear-force/Google Scholar
Caramani, D. (2020). Introduction: The technocratic challenge to democracy. In Bertsou, E. & Caramani, D. (Eds.), The technocratic challenge to democracy (pp. 1–26). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Carpenter, D. (2010). Reputation and power: Organizational image and pharmaceutical regulation at the FDA. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Carpenter, D., Chattopadhyay, J., Moffitt, S., & Nall, C. (2012). The complications of controlling agency time discretion: FDA review deadlines and postmarket drug safety. American Journal of Political Science, 56(1), 98–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Catanzaro, A., & Coticchia, F. (2018). Al di là dell’Arcobaleno: i movimenti pacifisti italiani tra ideologie e contro-narrazioni strategiche. Milano: Vita e pensiero.Google Scholar
Caughley, T., & Mukhatzhanova, G. (2017). Negotiation of a Nuclear Weapons Prohibition Treaty: Nuts and bolts of the Ban. UNIDIR. Retrieved from www.unidir.org/files/publications/pdfs/nuts-and-bolts-en-684.pdfGoogle Scholar
Cd&V. (2014). Het 3d plan van CD&V economische groei met sociale vooruitgang. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu//down/originals/2019-1/21521_2014.pdfGoogle Scholar
Cd&V. (2019). Verkiezingsprogramma CD&V. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu//down/originals/2020-1/21521_2019.pdfGoogle Scholar
CDU/CSU. (2013). Gemeinsam erfolgreich für Deutschland. Regierungsprogramm 2013–2017. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu/down/originals/41521_2013.pdfGoogle Scholar
CDU/CSU. (2021). Das Programm für Stabilität und Erneuerung. Gemeinsam für ein modernes Deutschland. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu/down/originals/2021-1/41521_2021.pdfGoogle Scholar
Center for Strategic and International Studies. (2024). Nuclear threats and the role of allies. Project on Nuclear Issues. Retrieved from www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jDqLj3JFw8Google Scholar
Centre Démocrate Humaniste. (2007). C’est l’heure h. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu//down/originals/21522_2007.pdfGoogle Scholar
Centre Démocrate Humaniste. (2010). Un pacte pour sortir les Belges de crise. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu//down/originals/21522_2010.pdfGoogle Scholar
Centre Démocrate Humaniste. (2014). Vivre mieux, c’est possible! Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu//down/originals/2022-1/21522_2014.pdfGoogle Scholar
Chiru, M., & Enyedi, Z. (2021). Who wants technocrats? A comparative study of citizen attitudes in nine young and consolidated democracies. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 24(1), 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christen-Democratisch Appel. (2010). Slagvaardig en samen. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu/down/originals/22521_2010.pdfGoogle Scholar
Christen-Democratisch Appel. (2021). Verkiezingsprogramma 2021–2025 Nu doorpakken. Retrieved from https://d14uo0i7wmc99w.cloudfront.net/CDA/2020/TK2021/CDA-verkiezingsprogramma%5B2021-2025%5D.pdfGoogle Scholar
ChristenUnie. (2010). Vooruitzien. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu//down/originals/22526_2010.pdfGoogle Scholar
ChristenUnie. (2012). Voor de verandering. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu//down/originals/2015-1/22526_2012.pdfGoogle Scholar
ChristenUnie. (2017). Hoopvol realistisch – Voorstellen voor een samenleving met toekomst. Verkiezingsprogramma 2017–2021. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu//down/originals/2018-1/22526_2017.pdfGoogle Scholar
ChristenUnie. (2021). Kiezen voor wat echt telt. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu//down/originals/2023-1/22526_2021.pdfGoogle Scholar
Clawson, R. A., & Oxley, Z. M. (2021). Public opinion: Democratic ideals, democratic practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CNAPD. (2019). Armes nucleaires – Pour qui votons-nous? Retrieved from www.cnapd.be/armes-nucleaires-elections-2019/Google Scholar
Coalition belge contre les armes nucléaires. (2020). Sondage YouGov: Plus de trois-quarts de la population belge demandent l’interdiction des armes nucléaires. Retrieved from https://nonukes.be/fr/sondage-yougov-plus-de-trois-quarts-de-la-population-belge-demandent-linterdiction-des-armes-nucleaires/Google Scholar
Colbourn, S. (2022). Euromissiles: The nuclear weapons that nearly destroyed NATO. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Coticchia, F. (2016). A controversial warplane: Narratives, counternarratives, and the Italian debate on the F-35. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 41(4), 194–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coticchia, F., & Vignoli, V. (2020a). Italian political parties and military operations: An empirical analysis on voting patterns. Government and Opposition, 55(3), 456–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coticchia, F., & Vignoli, V. (2020b). Populist parties and foreign policy: The case of Italy’s Five Star Movement. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 22(3), 523–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, C., & Ruzicka, J. (2013). The nonproliferation complex. Ethics & International Affairs, 27(3), 329–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creedon, M. R., Kyl, J. L., Billingslea, M. S., Duffy, G. C., Gordon-Hagerty, L. E., Gottemoeller, R. E., Heinrichs, R. L., Hyten, J. E., Kroenig, M. H., Miller, F. C., Scher, R. M., & Tomero, L. A. (2023). America’s strategic posture: The final report of the congressional commission on the strategic posture of the United States. Washington, DC: House Armed Services Committee.Google Scholar
Crespy, A., Moreira Ramalho, T., & Schmidt, V. (2024). Beyond ‘responsibility vs. responsiveness’: Reconfigurations of EU economic governance in response to crises. Journal of European Public Policy, 31(4), 925–949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curtin, D. (2014). Challenging executive dominance in European Democracy. The Modern Law Review, 77(1), 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D66. (2010). We willen het anders. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu//down/originals/22330_2010.pdfGoogle Scholar
D66. (2012). En nu vooruit. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu//down/originals/2015-1/22330_2012.pdfGoogle Scholar
D66. (2016). D66 Verkiezingsprogramma 2017–2021. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu//down/originals/2018-1/22330_2017.pdfGoogle Scholar
D66. (2021). Een nieuw begin laat iedereen vrij, maar niemand vallen. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu//down/originals/2023-1/22330_2021.pdfGoogle Scholar
Daalder, I. (1993). Nuclear weapons in Europe: Why zero is better. Arms Control Today, 23(1), 15−18.Google Scholar
Dahl, R. A. (1985). Controlling nuclear weapons: Democracy versus guardianship. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, R. A. (2020). On democracy [Veritas Paperback Edition]. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dalaqua, R. H. (2013). ‘Securing our survival (SOS)’: Non-state actors and the campaign for a nuclear weapons convention through the prism of securitisation theory. Brazilian Political Science Review, 7(3), 90–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Danish Defence Agreement 2005–2009 (Denmark). (2004).Google Scholar
Danish Diplomacy and Defense in Times of Change (Denmark). (2016).Google Scholar
Danish Security and Defence Towards 2035 (Denmark). (2022).Google Scholar
Davis, J. W., & Jasper, U. (2014). Non-strategic nuclear weapons as a ‘Trojan horse’: Explaining Germany’s ambivalent attitude. European Security, 23(1), 15–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, B., & Waltzkin, H. (1985). The medical profession and nuclear war. Journal of American Medical Association, 254(5), 644.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Kamer. (2022). Integraal Verslag (CRIV 55 COM 817). Retrieved from www.dekamer.be/doc/CCRI/pdf/55/ic817.pdfGoogle Scholar
de Maizière, T., Mitchell, A. W., Bew, J., Bossenmaier, G., Dalgaard-Nielsen, A., Dassù, M., Fotyga, A., Ildem, T., Védrine, H., & Verhagen, H. (2020). NATO 2030: United for a new era. Analysis and recommendations of the reflection group appointed by the NATO Secretary General. Retrieved from www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2020/12/pdf/201201-Reflection-Group-Final-Report-Uni.pdfGoogle Scholar
de Wilde, P., & Raunio, T. (2018). Redirecting national parliaments: Setting priorities for involvement in EU affairs. Comparative European Politics, 16(2), 310–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Defence Concept (Poland). (2017).Google Scholar
The Defence Strategy of the Slovak Republic (Slovakia). (2005).Google Scholar
Defense in 2020 (Portugal). (2013).Google Scholar
Denk. (2017). DENKend aan Nederland. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu//down/originals/2018-1/22321_2017.pdfGoogle Scholar
DENK. (2021). Verkiezingsprogramma DENK 2021–2025 DENK anders: Samen zijn wij Nederland. Denk voor de toekomst. Retrieved from www.bewegingdenk.nl/verkiezingsprogramma/Google Scholar
Department of Defense. (2010). Nuclear posture review. Washington, DC: Department of Defence.Google Scholar
Department of Defense. (2018). Nuclear posture review. Washington, DC: Office of the Secretary of Defense.Google Scholar
Department of Defense. (2022). Nuclear posture review. Washington, DC: Office of the Secretary of Defense.Google Scholar
Der Spiegel. (2005). Der Manager des Bösen. Retrieved from www.spiegel.de/politik/waffenabzug-a-860fec19-0002-0001-0000-000040266225?context=issueGoogle Scholar
Der Tagesspiegel. (2022). Zwei Drittel befürchten in Umfrage einen Dritten Weltkrieg. Der Tagesspiegel Online. Retrieved from www.tagesspiegel.de/politik/russlands-angriff-auf-die-ukraine-zwei-drittel-befuerchten-in-umfrage-einen-dritten-weltkrieg/28116150.htmlGoogle Scholar
Destradi, S., & Plagemann, J. (2019). Populism and International Relations: (Un)predictability, personalisation, and the reinforcement of existing trends in world politics. Review of International Studies, 45(5), 711–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deutsch, K. W. (1966). Integration and arms control in the European political environment: A summary report. The American Political Science Review, 60(2), 354–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deutscher Bundestag. (2023). Experten äußern sich besorgt zur globalen Abrüstungsarchitektur. Retrieved from www.bundestag.de/dokumente/textarchiv/2023/kw19-pa-ua-abruestung-946014Google Scholar
Deutscher Bundestag. (2021a). Abrüsten statt Aufrüsten – US-Atomwaffen aus Deutschland abziehen. Dokumentations- und Informationssystem für Parlamentsmaterialien. Retrieved from https://dip.bundestag.de/vorgang/abr%C3%BCsten-statt-aufr%C3%BCsten-us-atomwaffen-aus-deutschland-abziehen/278243?f.deskriptor=Abr%C3%BCstung&rows=25&pos=9Google Scholar
Deutscher Bundestag. (2021b). Stenografischer Bericht. 207. Sitzung. Berlin, Freitag, den 29. Januar 2021. Plenarprotokoll 19/207. Retrieved from https://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btp/19/19207.pdfGoogle Scholar
Die Linke. (2009). Konsequent sozial. Für Demokratie und Frieden. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu/down/originals/41223_2009.pdfGoogle Scholar
Die Linke. (2013). 100 Prozent sozial. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu/down/originals/41223_2013.pdfGoogle Scholar
Die Linke. (2017). Die Zukunft, für die wir kämpfen: Sozial. Gerecht. Frieden. Für Alle. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu//down/originals/2017-2/41223_2017.pdfGoogle Scholar
Die Linke. (2021). Zeit zu handeln! Für soziale Sicherheit, Frieden und Klimagerechtigkeit. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu//down/originals/2021-1/41223_2021.pdfGoogle Scholar
Dieterich, S., Hummel, H., & Marschall, S. (2010). Parliamentary war powers: A survey of 25 European parliaments. Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces. Occasional Paper No 21. Retrieved from www.dcaf.ch/content/download/35827/526871/file/OP21_FINAL.pdfGoogle Scholar
Dieterich, S., Hummel, H., & Marschall, S. (2015). Bringing democracy back in: The democratic peace, parliamentary war powers and European participation in the 2003 Iraq War. Cooperation and Conflict, 50(1), 87–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Docherty, B. (2018). A ‘light for all humanity’: The treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons and the progress of humanitarian disarmament. Global Change, Peace & Security, 30(2), 163–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Don’t Bank on the Bomb. (2023). Why Divest? A Focus on Governments. Retrieved from www.dontbankonthebomb.com/take-action-for-divestment/governments/Google Scholar
Driesen, D. M. (2020). The unitary executive theory in comparative context. Hastings Law Journal, 72(1), 1–54.Google Scholar
Eaves, E. (2021). Why is America getting a new $100 billion nuclear weapon? Retrieved from https://thebulletin.org/2021/02/why-is-america-getting-a-new-100-billion-nuclear-weapon/Google Scholar
Ecolo. (2010). Plateforme programmatique Ecolo. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu//down/originals/21111_2010.pdfGoogle Scholar
Egeland, K. (2017a). How I learned to stop worrying and embrace diplomatic ‘polarization’. Peace Review, 29(4), 482–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egeland, K. (2017b). The road to prohibition: Nuclear hierarchy and disarmament, 1968–2017. Oxford, UK: University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Egeland, K. (2019). Nuclear abolition from Baruch to the ban. In Bailliet, C. M. (Ed.), Research handbook on international law and peace (pp. 244–266). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Egeland, K. (2020a). Spreading the burden: How NATO became a ‘nuclear’ alliance. Diplomacy & Statecraft, 31(1), 143–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egeland, K. (2020b). Who stole disarmament? History and nostalgia in nuclear abolition discourse. International Affairs, 96(5), 1387–1403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egeland, K. (2021). Nuclear weapons and adversarial politics: Bursting the abolitionist ‘Consensus’. Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament, 4(1), 107–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egeland, K., & Pelopidas, B. (2020). European nuclear weapons? Zombie debates and nuclear realities. European Security, 30(2), 237–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egeland, K., & Pelopidas, B. (2025). No such thing as a free donation? Research funding and conflicts of interest in nuclear weapons policy analysis. International Relations, 39(1), 125–147. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/00471178221140000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, R. S., MacKuen, M., & Stimson, J. A. (2002). The macro polity. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eschle, C. (2021). Feminism and peace movements: Engendering anti-nuclear activism. In Väyrynen, T., Féron, É., Parashar, S., & Confortini, C. (Eds.), Routledge handbook of feminist peace research (pp. 250–259). New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everts, P. (1984). The churches and attitudes on nuclear weapons: The case of the Netherlands. Bulletin of Peace Proposals, 15(3), 227–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everts, P. (1985a). Controversies at home: Domestic factors in the foreign policy of the Netherlands. Dordrecht: Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everts, P. (1985b). Public opinion on nuclear weapons, defense, and security: The case of the Netherlands. In Flynn, G. & Rattinger, H. (Eds.), The public and Atlantic defense (pp. 221–275). Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld.Google Scholar
Everts, P., & Isernia, P. (2015). Public opinion, transatlantic relations and the use of force. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fearon, J. D. (1997). Signaling foreign policy interests. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41(1), 68–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fedina, K. (2024). How Finland approaches its new NATO role is a key decision for the New President. RAND Corporation. Retrieved from www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2024/02/how-finland-approaches-its-new-nato-role-is-a-key-decision.htmlGoogle Scholar
Fetter, S., & Wolfsthal, J. (2018). No first use and credible deterrence. Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament, 1(1), 102–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finnemore, M., & Jurkovich, M. (2020). The politics of aspiration. International Studies Quarterly, 64(4), 759–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flournoy, M., & Townsend, J. (2020). Striking at the Heart of the Trans-Atlantic Bargain. Der Spiegel International. Retrieved from www.spiegel.de/international/world/biden-advisers-on-nuclear-sharing-striking-at-the-heart-of-the-trans-atlantic-bargain-a-e6d96a48-68ef-49ab-8a0c-8a979abf2bb4Google Scholar
Fonck, D., Haesebrouck, T., & Reykers, Y. (2019). Parliamentary involvement, party ideology and majority-opposition bargaining: Belgian participation in multinational military operations. Contemporary Security Policy, 40(1), 85–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foradori, P. (2012). Tactical nuclear weapons in Italy: Striking a balance between disarmament aspirations and alliance obligations. The Nonproliferation Review, 19(1), 13–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foradori, P. (2014). Reluctant disarmer: Italy’s ambiguous attitude toward NATO’s nuclear weapons policy. European Security, 23(1), 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fordham, B. O., & Flynn, M. (2023). Everything old is new again: The persistence of Republican opposition to multilateralism in American foreign policy. Studies in American Political Development, 37(1), 56–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foyle, D. C. (1999). Linking public opinion and foreign policy. In Counting the public in: Presidents, public opinion, and foreign policy. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Fraise, T. (2022). La question du secret nucléaire: technologie, secrets d’État et enjeux démocratiques. Critique internationale, 95(2), 172–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraise, T. (2023). Restricted democracies: Nuclear weapons programs, secrecy, and democracy in the United Kingdom, France, and Sweden (1939–1974) [unpublished PhD dissertation]. Paris: Sciences Po.Google Scholar
France24. (2025). Germany’s far-right AfD basks in spotlight of Musk support. Retrieved from www.france24.com/en/live-news/20250216-germany-s-far-right-afd-basks-in-spotlight-of-musk-supportGoogle Scholar
Franceschini, G. (2024). The Greens and nuclear weapons: Between disarmament aspirations and pragmatism. In Kühn, U. (Ed.), Germany and nuclear weapons in the 21st century: Nuclear Zeitenwende? (pp. 182–202). Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frankland, E. G. (1999). The Green Party’s transformation: The ‘New Politics’ party grows up. In Merk, P. H. (Ed.), The federal Republic of Germany at Fifty (pp. 147–159). New York: New York University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freedman, L., & Michaels, J. H. (2019). The evolution of nuclear strategy (4th ed.). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freie Demokratische Partei. (2009). Die Mitte stärken. Deutschlandprogramm 2009. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu/down/originals/41420_2009.pdfGoogle Scholar
Freie Demokratische Partei. (2013). Damit Deutschland stark bleibt. Bürgerprogramm 2013. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu//down/originals/41420_2013.pdfGoogle Scholar
Freie Demokratische Partei. (2017). Schauen wir nicht länger zu – Das Wahlprogramm der Freien Demokraten zur Bundestagswahl 2017. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu/down/originals/2017-2/41420_2017.pdfGoogle Scholar
Freie Demokratische Partei. (2021). Nie gab es mehr zu tun – Das Wahlprogramm der Freien Demokraten. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu/down/originals/2021-1/41420_2021.pdfGoogle Scholar
Frühling, S., & O’Neil, A. (2017). Nuclear weapons, the United States and alliances in Europe and Asia: Toward an institutional perspective. Contemporary Security Policy, 38(1), 4–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuhrhop, P. (2021). The German debate: The Bundestag and nuclear deterrence. In Morgan, A. & Péczeli, A. (Eds.), Europe’s evolving deterrence discourse (pp. 27–38). Livermore, CA: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.Google Scholar
Fuhrhop, P., Kühn, U., & Meier, O. (2020). Creating an opportunity to withdraw U.S. nuclear weapons from Europe. Arms Control Today. Retrieved from www.armscontrol.org/act/2020-10/features/creating-opportunity-withdraw-us-nuclear-weapons-europe#endnote05Google Scholar
Fuhrmann, M., & Sechser, T. S. (2014a). Nuclear strategy, nonproliferation, and the causes of Foreign nuclear deployments. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, 58(3), 455–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuhrmann, M., & Sechser, T. S. (2014b). Signaling alliance commitments: Hand-tying and Sunk Costs in extended nuclear deterrence. American Journal of Political Science, 58(4), 919–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fursdon, E. (1980). The European defence community: A history. London & Basingstoke: Macmillan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Futter, A., & Samuel, O. (2024). Accommodating Nutopia: The nuclear ban treaty and the developmental interests of Global South countries. Review of International Studies, 50(5), 799–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garamone, J. (2019). U.S. begins process of ‘Unwinding’ Turkey from F-35 Program, DOD Officials Say US Department of Defense. Retrieved from www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/1908351/us-begins-process-of-unwinding-turkey-from-f-35-program-dod-officials-say/Google Scholar
Gavin, F. J. (2012). Nuclear statecraft: History and strategy in America’s atomic age. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Gavin, F. J. (2015). Strategies of inhibition: US grand strategy, the nuclear revolution, and nonproliferation. International Security, 40(1), 9–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geis, A., & Wagner, W. (2008). From democratic peace to democratic distinctiveness: A critique of democratic exceptionalism in peace and conflict studies. Comparative Research in Law & Political Economy. Research Paper No. 39/2008. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/clpe/208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gemeente Amsterdam. (2020). Bestuurlijke reactie op het initiatiefvoorstel van Raadslid Roosma (GroenLinks) getiteld ‘Ban de Bom’ (29 September 2020).Google Scholar
Gemeente Amsterdam / Gemeenteraad. (2019). Instemmen met het initiatiefvoorstel ‘Ban de Bom. Zeg ja tegen het VN kernwapenverdrag en zeg nee tegen belastingontwijkende wapenproducenten’ van de leden Roosma (GroenLinks), Bakker (SP), Simons (BIJ1), Mbarki (PvdA), Van Lammeren (PvdD) en Kılıç (DENK) en kennisnemen van de bestuurlijke reactie. (Initiatiefvoorstel).Google Scholar
Gemeente Amsterdam / Gemeenteraad. (2021). Instemmen met het gewijzigde initiatiefvoorstel ‘Ban de Bom. Zeg ja tegen het VN-kernwapenverdrag en zeg nee tegen belastingontwijkende wapenproducenten’ van de leden Roosma, N.T. Bakker, Mbarki, Van Lammeren en Kik en het voormalig lid Simons en kennisnemen van de bestuurlijke reactie op het oorspronkelijke voorstel. VN2021-000324 (Initiatiefvoorstel).Google Scholar
Gemeente Rotterdam / College van Burgemeester en Wethouders. (2020). Afdoeningsvoorstel van motie ‘Ondertekening ICAN Cities Appeal’ (8 December 2020). Retrieved from https://gemeenteraad.rotterdam.nl/Reports/Document/b12d9685-50b8-4e57-a00d-38cdb666c1ca?documentId=bf566c16-21e4-4fef-8577-43a3ccf8fbd5Google Scholar
Gemeente van Rotterdam. (2020). Gemeenteraad donderdag 1 oktober 2020 (Agenda). Retrieved from https://gemeenteraad.rotterdam.nl/Agenda/Index/5a1fa524-ef35-4a3c-8b69-986256f92ab4Google Scholar
Gerzhoy, G. (2015). Alliance coercion and nuclear restraint: How the United States thwarted West Germany’s nuclear ambitions. International Security, 39(4), 91–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gheorghe, E. (2022). Balance of power redux: Nuclear alliances and the logic of extended deterrence. The Chinese Journal of International Politics, 15(1), 87–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbons, R. D. (2017). The nuclear Ban Treaty: How did we get here, what does it mean for the United States? War on the Rocks. Retrieved from https://warontherocks.com/2017/07/the-nuclear-ban-treaty-how-did-we-get-here-what-does-it-mean-for-the-united-states/Google Scholar
Gibbons, R. D. (2018). The humanitarian turn in nuclear disarmament and the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons. The Nonproliferation Review, 25(1–2), 11–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbons, R. D. (2022). The Hegemon’s tool kit. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Gibbons, R. D., & Herzog, S. (2023). Nuclear disarmament and Russia’s War on Ukraine: The ascendance and uncertain future of the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons. In Gibbons, R. D., Herzog, S., Wan, W., & Horschig, D. (Eds.), The altered nuclear order in the wake of the Russia-Ukraine War (pp. 1–36). Cambridge, MA: American Academy of Arts & Sciences.Google Scholar
Gibbons, R. D., & Herzog, S. (2024). Treaty design and norm entrepreneurs: Nuclear disarmament advocates adapt to the Russia–Ukraine War [working paper].Google Scholar
Goldberg, J. (2025). The trump administration accidentally texted me its war plans. The Atlantic. Retrieved from www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/03/trump-administration-accidentally-texted-me-its-war-plans/682151/Google Scholar
Götz, N. (2005). On the origins of ‘Parliamentary Diplomacy’. Cooperation and Conflict, 40(3), 263–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Götz, N. (2011). Deliberative diplomacy: The Nordic approach to global governance and societal representation at the United Nations. Dordrecht: Republic of Letters Publishing.Google Scholar
Government of Norway. (2009). Non-paper on including tactical nuclear weapons in Europe in a broader nuclear disarmament and arms control process (with Government of Poland). Retrieved from www.regjeringen.no/globalassets/upload/ud/vedlegg/sikkerhetspol/nonpaper_nuclear.pdfGoogle Scholar
Government Office of the Slovak Republic. (2016). Biela kniha o obrane Slovenskej republiky (submission for a cabinet meeting). Retrieved from www.rokovanie.sk/Rokovanie.aspx/NezaradenyMaterialDetail?idMaterial=25762Google Scholar
Gravelle, T. B., Reifler, J., & Scotto, T. J. (2017). The structure of foreign policy attitudes in transatlantic perspective: Comparing the United States, United Kingdom, France and Germany. European Journal of Political Research, 56(4), 757–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gravelle, T. B., Reifler, J., & Scotto, T. J. (2020). Personality traits and foreign policy attitudes: A cross-national exploratory study. Personality and Individual Differences, 153, 109607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gravelle, T. B., Reifler, J., & Scotto, T. J. (2021). The structure of foreign policy attitudes among middle power publics: A transpacific replication. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 75(2), 217–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenpeace. (2019). Greenpeace-Umfrage zum Ende des INF-Vertrags: Große Mehrheit will keine Atomwaffen in Deutschland. Retrieved from www.greenpeace.de/sites/default/files/publications/umfrage_ende_inf-vertrag.pdfGoogle Scholar
Greenpeace. (2020). Greenpeace-Umfrage zu Atomwaffen und Atomwaffenverbotsvertrag. Retrieved from www.greenpeace.de/publikationen/umfrage_atomwaffenverbotsvertrag__0.pdfGoogle Scholar
Greenpeace. (2021). Greenpeace-Umfrage: Große Mehrheit will Deutschlands Beitritt zum Atomwaffenverbotsvertrag. Retrieved from https://greenwire.greenpeace.de/group/themengruppe-frieden/inhalt/greenpeace-umfrage-grosse-mehrheit-will-deutschlands-beitritt-zumGoogle Scholar
Groen. (2010). Programma Federale Verkiezingen 2010. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu//down/originals/21112_2010.pdfGoogle Scholar
Groen. (2014). Samen beter doen. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu//down/originals/2019-1/21112_2014.pdfGoogle Scholar
Groen. (2019). Menselijker Eerlijker Gezonder. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu//down/originals/2020-1/21112_2019.pdfGoogle Scholar
GroenLinks. (2010). Klaar voor de toekomst. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu/down/originals/22110_2010.pdfGoogle Scholar
GroenLinks. (2012). Groene kansen voor Nederland. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu//down/originals/2015-1/22110_2012.pdfGoogle Scholar
GroenLinks. (2017). Tijd voor verandering. Verkiezingsprogramma GroenLinks 2017–2021. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu//down/originals/2018-1/22110_2017.pdfGoogle Scholar
GroenLinks. (2021). Verkiezingsprogramma GroenLinks 2021. Retrieved from https://groenlinks.nl/sites/groenlinks/files/2021-02/Verkiezingsprogramma%20GroenLinks%202021_2.pdfGoogle Scholar
GroenLinks Amsterdam. (2021). Amsterdam sluit zich aan bij wereldwijd verband van steden tegen kernwapens. Retrieved from https://amsterdam.groenlinks.nl/nieuws/amsterdam-sluit-zich-aan-bij-wereldwijd-verband-van-steden-tegen-kernwapensGoogle Scholar
GroenLinks Rotterdam. (n.d.). Stephan Leewis. Retrieved from https://rotterdam.groenlinks.nl/stephan-leewisGoogle Scholar
Gross Stein, J. (2023). Escalation management in Ukraine: ‘Learning by Doing’ in response to the ‘Threat that Leaves Something to Chance’. Texas National Security Review, 6(3), 29–50.Google Scholar
Haftendorn, H. (1996). NATO and the nuclear revolution: A crisis of credibility, 1966–1967. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halás, M. (2023). A manifesto for the Czech Membership in NATO’s Nuclear Sharing Club. Institute of International Relations Prague. Retrieved from www.iir.cz/en/a-manifesto-for-the-czech-membership-in-nato-s-nuclear-sharing-club-1Google Scholar
Hammer, M. (2020). The collapse of global arms control. TIME. Retrieved from https://time.com/6334258/putin-nuclear-arms-control/Google Scholar
Haworth, A. R., Sagan, S. D., & Valentino, B. A. (2019). What do Americans really think about conflict with nuclear North Korea? The answer is both reassuring and disturbing. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 75(4), 179–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henke, M., & Maher, R. (2021). The populist challenge to European defense. Journal of European Public Policy, 28(3), 389–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henley, J. (2023). Rural populist party emerges as big winner in Dutch elections. The Guardian. Retrieved from www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/16/rural-populist-party-farmer-citizen-movement-big-winner-dutch-electionsGoogle Scholar
Herzog, S., & Sukin, L. (2023). Nightmares behind the South Korean President’s alarming comments. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Retrieved from https://carnegieendowment.org/2023/01/25/dueling-nuclear-nightmares-behind-south-korean-president-s-alarming-comments-pub-88879Google Scholar
Heuser, B. (1995). The development of NATO’s nuclear strategy. Contemporary European History, 4(1), 37–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heuser, B., & Stoddart, K. (2017). Difficult Europeans: NATO and tactical/non-strategic nuclear weapons in the Cold War. Diplomacy & Statecraft, 28(3), 454–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heyne, L., & Lobo, M. C. (2021). Technocratic attitudes and voting behaviour ten years after the Eurozone crisis: Evidence from the 2019 EP elections. Electoral Studies, 70, 102288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofmann, S. C. (2013). European security in NATO’s shadow: Party ideologies and institution building. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofmann, S. C., & Martill, B. (2021). The party scene: New directions for political party research in foreign policy analysis. International Affairs, 97(2), 305–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holsti, O. R. (1992). Public opinion and Foreign policy: Challenges to the Almond-Lippmann consensus. International Studies Quarterly, 36(4), 439–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooghe, L., & Marks, G. (2009). A postfunctionalist theory of European integration: From permissive consensus to constraining dissensus. British Journal of Political Science, 39(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, A., Kevins, A., Jensen, C., & Kersbergen, K. V. (2017). Peeping at the corpus – What is really going on behind the equality and welfare items of the Manifesto project? Journal of European Social Policy, 27(5), 403–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horovitz, L. (2014). Why do they want American Nukes? Central and Eastern European positions regarding US nonstrategic nuclear weapons. European Security, 23(1), 73–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horovitz, L., & Arndt, A. (2022). Russia’s catch-all nuclear rhetoric in its war against Ukraine. SWP Comment No 60. Retrieved from www.swp-berlin.org/publications/products/comments/2022C60_Russia_NuclearRhetoric.pdfGoogle Scholar
Horovitz, L., & Arndt, A. (2023). One year of nuclear rhetoric and escalation management in Russia’s war against Ukraine: An updated chronology. SWP Research Division International Security Working Paper Nr. 1/2023. Retrieved from www.swp-berlin.org/publikation/one-year-of-nuclear-rhetoric-and-escalation-management-in-russias-war-against-ukraine-an-updated-chronologyGoogle Scholar
Horovitz, L., & Major, C. (2023). Der gefährliche Traum von der deutschen Atombombe. Der Spiegel. Retrieved from www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/aufruestung-der-gefaehrliche-traum-von-der-deutschen-atombombe-gastbeitrag-a-a2cbeefb-22f7-4e88-8880-69915d9a56cfGoogle Scholar
Horovitz, L., & Major, C. (2025). Europäische Sicherheit unter Trump II: Viel Druck, doch womöglich wenig Wandel. In von Daniels, L. & Mair, S. (Eds.), Trumps Rückkehr und Europas außenpolitische Herausforderungen (pp. 19–23). Berlin: Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik.Google Scholar
Horovitz, L., & Onderco, M. (2024). How Germans learned to stop worrying and love the bomb, then probably start worrying again. The War on the Rocks. Retrieved from https://warontherocks.com/2023/10/how-germans-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-the-bomb-then-probably-start-worrying-again/Google Scholar
Hug, S. (2010). Selection effects in roll call votes. British Journal of Political Science, 40(1), 225–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hummel, H. (2024). Contested nuclear sharing in Belgium: Domestic political dynamic for the nuclear weapons ban. Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament, 7(2), 468–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunt, J. R. (2022). The nuclear club: How America and the world policed the atom from Hiroshima to Vietnam. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurwitz, J., & Peffley, M. (1987). How are foreign policy attitudes structured? A hierarchical model. American Political Science Review, 81(4), 1099–1120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ICAN. (2017). Deutsche wollen andere Atomwaffenpolitik der Regierung. Retrieved from www.icanw.de/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/YouGov-Umfrage_Atomwaffen_2018.pdfGoogle Scholar
ICAN. (2018a). One year on: European attitudes toward the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Retrieved from https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/ican/pages/714/attachments/original/1575571450/YouGov_ICAN_EUNATOTPNW2018.pdf?1575571450Google Scholar
ICAN. (2018b). Umfrage: Deutsche wollen Abzug der Atomwaffen. Retrieved from www.icanw.de/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/YouGov-Umfrage_Atomwaffen_2018.pdfGoogle Scholar
ICAN. (2019a). Polls: Public opinion in EU host states firmly opposes nuclear weapons. Retrieved from www.icanw.org/polls_public_opinion_in_eu_host_states_firmly_opposes_nuclear_weaponsGoogle Scholar
ICAN. (2019b). Umfrage: Deutsche gegen neue Atombomber. Retrieved from www.icanw.de/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/2019-04_YouGov-Ergebnisse_de.pdfGoogle Scholar
ICAN. (2020). ICAN Cities Appeal. Retrieved from https://cities.icanw.org/list_of_citiesGoogle Scholar
ICAN. (2021). NATO public opinion on nuclear weapons. Retrieved from https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/ican/pages/234/attachments/original/1611134933/ICAN_YouGov_Poll_2020.pdfGoogle Scholar
Infratest-Dimap. (2022). US-Atombomben in Deutschland: 52 Prozent für Verbleib, 39 Prozent für Abzug. Retrieved from www.infratest-dimap.de/umfragen-analysen/bundesweit/umfragen/aktuell/us-atombomben-in-deutschland-52-prozent-fuer-verbleib-39-prozent-fuer-abzug/Google Scholar
Interview with Beatrice Fihn. (2022). Nuclear Proliferation International History Project. Retrieved from https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/interview-beatrice-fihnGoogle Scholar
Interview with Daniel Högsta. (2022). Nuclear Proliferation International History Project. Retrieved from https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/interview-daniel-hogstaGoogle Scholar
Interview with Francesco Vignarca. (2023). Nuclear Proliferation International History Project. Retrieved from https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/interview-francesco-vignarcaGoogle Scholar
Interview with Hirotsugu Terasaki. (2023). Nuclear Proliferation International History Project. Retrieved from https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/interview-hirotsugu-terasakiGoogle Scholar
Interview with Melissa Parke. (2024). Nuclear Proliferation International History Project. Retrieved from https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/interview-melissa-parkeGoogle Scholar
Interview with Oliver Meier. (2022). Nuclear Proliferation International History Project. Retrieved from https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/interview-oliver-meierGoogle Scholar
Interview with Ray Acheson. (2023). Nuclear Proliferation International History Project. Retrieved from https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/interview-ray-achesonGoogle Scholar
Interview with Sico van der Meer. (2022). Nuclear Proliferation International History Project. Retrieved from https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/interview-sico-van-der-meerGoogle Scholar
Interview with Susi Snyder. (2022). Nuclear Proliferation International History Project. Retrieved from https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/interview-susi-snyderGoogle Scholar
Interview with Xanthe Hall. (2023). Nuclear Proliferation International History Project. Retrieved from https://digitalarchive.wilsoncenter.org/document/interview-xanthe-hallGoogle Scholar
IPPNW. (2016). Meinungen zu Atomwaffen. Retrieved from www.ippnw.de/commonFiles/pdfs/Atomwaffen/forsaumfrage_Atomwaffen_2016.pdfGoogle Scholar
Italia Europa Insieme. (2018). Insieme è meglio. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu//down/originals/2019-1/32022_2018.pdfGoogle Scholar
Jakobi, A. (2025). Engaging in and with complexity: Local actors, Mayors for Peace and the global nuclear order. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 38(3), 319–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jervis, R. (1976). Perception and misperception in international politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Jolly, S., Bakker, R., Hooghe, L., Marks, G., Polk, J., Rovny, J., Steenbergen, M., & Vachudova, M. A. (2022). Chapel Hill expert survey trend file, 1999–2019. Electoral Studies, 75, 102420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jonter, T. (2016). The key to nuclear restraint: The Swedish plans to acquire nuclear weapons during the Cold War. London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaarbo, J. (2015). A foreign policy analysis perspective on the domestic politics turn in IR theory. International Studies Review, 17(2), 189–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaarbo, J., & Lantis, J. S. (2003). The ‘greening’ of German foreign policy in the Iraq case: Conditions of junior party influence in governing coalitions. Acta Politica, 38(3), 201–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kabinetsreactie op AIV-adviesrapport ‘Kernwapens in een nieuwe geopolitieke werkelijkheid’ [Brief van de ministers van buitenlandse zaken en van defensie]. (2019). Retrieved from www.tweedekamer.nl/downloads/document?id=fb2b0d74-bbb3-4039-9fae-d5bbe764c341&title=Kabinetsreactie%20op%20AIV-adviesrapport%20%22Kernwapens%20in%20een%20nieuwe%20geopolitieke%20werkelijkheid%22.pdfGoogle Scholar
Kacprzyk, A. (2023). NATO nuclear adaptation: Rationales for expanding the force posture in Europe. Polish Institute of International Affairs. Retrieved from www.pism.pl/webroot/upload/files/Raport/PISM%20Report%20NATO%20Nuclear%20Adaptation.pdfGoogle Scholar
Kamp, K.-H., & Remkes, R. C. N. (2011). Options for NATO nuclear sharing arrangements. In Andreasen, S. & Williams, I. (Eds.), Reducing nuclear risks in Europe: A framework for action (pp. 76–95). Washington, DC: Nuclear Threat Initiative.Google Scholar
Kaplan, F. M. (2020). The bomb: Presidents, generals, and the secret history of nuclear war. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Karlas, J. (2011). Parliamentary control of EU affairs in Central and Eastern Europe: Explaining the variation. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(2), 258–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kassenova, T. (2022). Atomic Steppe: How Kazakhstan gave up the bomb. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keidan, C. (2017). Interview: Adessium Foundation. Alliance Magazine. Retrieved from www.alliancemagazine.org/interview/interview-adessium-foundation/Google Scholar
Kelleher, C. M. (1975). Germany and the politics of nuclear weapons. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Keman, H. (1986). Welfare and warfare. Critical options and conscious choice in public policy. In Wildenmann, R. (Ed.), Managing mixed economies (pp. 97–141). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kertzer, J. D. (2013). Making sense of isolationism: Foreign policy mood as a multilevel phenomenon. The Journal of Politics, 75(1), 225–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kesgin, B., & Kaarbo, J. (2010). When and how parliaments influence foreign policy: The case of Turkey’s Iraq decision. International Studies Perspectives, 11(1), 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KeyJr., V. O. (1961). Public opinion and American democracy. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Khalessi, D. (2015). Strategic ambiguity: Nuclear sharing and the secret strategy for drafting articles I and II of the nonproliferation treaty. The Nonproliferation Review, 22(3–4), 421–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khalid, A. (2025). Zelenskyy’s visit to the White House ends abruptly after Oval Office spat. NPR. Retrieved from www.npr.org/2025/02/28/nx-s1-5312076/zelenskyys-visit-to-the-white-house-ends-abruptly-after-oval-office-spatGoogle Scholar
Kibaroğlu, M. (2005). Isn’t it time to say farewell to Nukes in Turkey? European Security, 14(4), 443–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingdom of the Netherlands. (2017). Explanation of vote of the Netherlands on text of Nuclear Ban Treaty. Retrieved from www.permanentrepresentations.nl/latest/news/2017/07/07/explanation-of-vote-of-ambassador-lise-gregoire-on-the-draft-text-of-the-nuclear-ban-treatyGoogle Scholar
Kingdon, J. W. (2014). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Harlow: Pearson.Google Scholar
Kmentt, A. (2021). The treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons: How it was achieved and why it matters. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knopf, J. W. (1998). Domestic society and international cooperation: The impact of protest on US arms control policy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Knorr, K. (1959). The strained alliance. In Knorr, K. (Ed.), NATO and American security (pp. 3–10). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, L. L., & Wells, M. (2021). Still Taboo? Citizens’ attitudes toward the use of nuclear weapons. Journal of Global Security Studies, 6(3), ogaa024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, S. J. (2012). The presidential nuclear initiatives of 1991–1992. Washington, DC: National Defense University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krause, K. (2014). Transnational civil society activism and international security politics: From landmines to global zero. Global Policy, 5(2), 229–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krepon, M. (2021). Winning and losing the nuclear peace: The rise, demise, and revival of arms control. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreps, S. (2010). Elite consensus as a determinant of alliance cohesion: Why public opinion hardly matters for NATO-led operations in Afghanistan. Foreign Policy Analysis, 6(3), 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreuder-Sonnen, C. (2019). Emergency powers of international organizations: Between normalization and containment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krieger, D., & Ikeda, D. (2002). Choose hope. Santa Monica: Middleway Press.Google Scholar
Kristensen, H. M. (1995). The 520 Forgotten Bombs: How U.S. and British nuclear weapons in Europe undermine the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Greenpeace International. Retrieved from http://mkiftbv.nukestrat.com/pubs/520bombs.pdfGoogle Scholar
Kristensen, H. M. (2015). Nuclear weapons in NATO’s deterrence posture: Status quo or change? In Von Hlatky, S. & Wenger, A. (Eds.), The future of extended deterrence (pp. 135–152). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Kristensen, H. M., & Korda, M. (2022). United States nuclear weapons, 2022. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 78(3), 162–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kristensen, H. M., & Korda, M. (2023a). United States nuclear weapons, 2023. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 79(1), 28–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kristensen, H. M., & Korda, M. (2023b). World nuclear forces. In Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (Ed.), SIPRI yearbook 2023: Armaments, disarmament and international security (pp. 247–336). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kristensen, H. M., Korda, M., Johns, E., & Knight, M. (2023). Nuclear weapons sharing, 2023. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 79(6), 393–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, F. (2023). Making nuclear sharing credible again: What the F-35A means for NATO. War on the Rocks. Retrieved from https://warontherocks.com/2023/09/making-nuclear-sharing-credible-again-what-the-f-35a-means-for-nato/Google Scholar
Kühn, U. (2024a). Germany debates nuclear weapons, again. But now it’s different. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Retrieved from https://thebulletin.org/2024/03/germany-debates-nuclear-weapons-again-but-now-its-different/#post-headingGoogle Scholar
Kühn, U. (Ed.) (2024b). Germany and nuclear weapons in the 21st century: Nuclear Zeitenwende? Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kühn, U., Volpe, T., & Thompson, B. (2018, 15 August). Tracking the German Nuclear Debate. Retrieved from https://carnegieendowment.org/2018/08/15/tracking-german-nuclear-debate-pub-72884Google Scholar
Kunz, B., & Kühn, U. (2024). German musings about a Franco-German or German Bomb. In Kühn, U. (Ed.), Germany and nuclear weapons in the 21st century: Nuclear Zeitenwende? (pp. 112–135). Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurosaki, A. (2020). Public opinion, party politics and alliance: The influence of domestic politics on Japan’s reliance on the U. S. nuclear umbrella, 1964–8. The International History Review, 42(4), 774–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kütt, M., Podvig, P., & Mian, Z. (2023). Bombs away: Confronting the deployment of nuclear weapons in non-nuclear weapon countries. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Retrieved from https://thebulletin.org/2023/07/bombs-away-confronting-the-deployment-of-nuclear-weapons-in-non-nuclear-weapon-countries/#post-headingGoogle Scholar
Laffan, B. (2014). Testing times: The growing primacy of responsibility in the euro area. West European Politics, 37(2), 270–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambert, A. J., Scherer, L. D., Schott, J. P., Olson, K. R., Andrews, R. K., O’Brien, T. C., & Zisser, A. R. (2010). Rally effects, threat, and attitude change: An integrative approach to understanding the role of emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(6), 886.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lambert, A. J., Schott, J. P., & Scherer, L. (2011). Threat, politics, and attitudes: Toward a greater understanding of rally-’round-the-flag effects. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(6), 343–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lanoszka, A. (2020). Poland in a time of geopolitical flux. Contemporary Politics, 26(4), 458–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lantis, J. S. (2009). Strategic culture and tailored deterrence: Bridging the gap between theory and practice. Contemporary Security Policy, 30(3), 467–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen, J. A. (2015). US extended deterrence and Europe: Time to consider alternative structures? In Von Hlatky, S. & Wenger, A. (Eds.), The future of extended deterrence (pp. 41–70). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Larson, D. W., Paul, T. V., & Wohlforth, W. C. (2014). Status and world order. In Paul, T. V., Welch Larson, D., & Wohlforth, W. C. (Eds.), Status in world politics (pp. 3–30). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lederer, E. M. (2020). US urges countries to withdraw from UN nuke ban treaty. Associated Press News. Retrieved from https://apnews.com/article/nuclear-weapons-disarmament-latin-america-united-nations-gun-politics-4f109626a1cdd6db10560550aa1bb491Google Scholar
Lehmann, P., Franzmann, S., Burst, T., Lewandowski, J., Matthieß, T., Regel, S., Riethmüller, F., & Zehnter, L. (2023a). Manifesto Corpus. Version: 2023-1. Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung.Google Scholar
Lehmann, P., Franzmann, S., Burst, T., Regel, S., Riethmüller, F., Volkens, A., Weßels, B., & Zehnter, L. (2023b). The Manifesto Data Collection. Manifesto Project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR). Version 2023a: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB) / Göttinger Institut für Demokratieforschung (IfDem).Google Scholar
Leonard, C. (2023). Lockheed Martin’s $1.7 trillion F-35 fighter jet is 10 years late and 80% over budget—And it could be one of the Pentagon’s biggest success stories. Fortune. Retrieved from https://fortune.com/longform/lockheed-martin-f-35-fighter-jet/Google Scholar
Lévêque, C. M., Castello, S., & Carbonell, A. (2017). Origins and evolutions of the Adessium Foundation: From the inspiration of a family to an impactful foundation. Fondazione Lang Italia. Retrieved from https://en.fondazionelangitalia.it/2017/11/29/origins-and-evolutions-of-the-adessium-foundation-from-the-inspiration-of-a-family-to-an-impactful-foundation/Google Scholar
Lewis, P. M. (2009). A New approach to nuclear disarmament: Learning from International Humanitarian Law Success (ICNND Paper No. 13). Canberra: International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament.Google Scholar
Liberi e Uguali. (2018). Programma Liberi e Uguali. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu//down/originals/2019-1/32031_2018.pdfGoogle Scholar
Lieber, K. A., & Press, D. G. (2020). The myth of the nuclear revolution: Power politics in the atomic age. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Lijphart, A. (1999). Patterns of democracy: Government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lin-Greenberg, E. (2021). Soldiers, pollsters, and international crises: Public opinion and the military’s advice on the use of force. Foreign Policy Analysis, 17(3), orab009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, C. (2011). The political theory and practice of parliamentary participation in the Common Security and Defence Policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(8), 1133–1150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lunn, S. (2018). NATO nuclear sharing: Consultation. In Andreasen, S., Williams, I., Rose, B., Kristensen, H. M., Lunn, S., Moniz, E. J., & Nunn, S. (Eds.), Building a safe, secure, and credible NATO nuclear posture (pp. 41–46). Washington, DC: Nuclear Threat Initiative.Google Scholar
Lutsch, A. (2016). Merely ‘Docile self-deception’? German experiences with nuclear consultation in NATO. Journal of Strategic Studies, 39(4), 535–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lutsch, A. (2019). Westbindung oder Gleichgewicht? Die nukleare Sicherheitspolitik der Bundesrepublik Deutschland zwischen Atomwaffensperrvertrag und NATO-Doppelbeschluss. Oldenbourg: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lutsch, A. (2020). The zero option and NATO’s dual-track decision: Rethinking the paradox. Journal of Strategic Studies, 43(6–7), 957–989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maddox, B. (2025). Trump’s ‘electroshock’ on Ukraine ends the debate: Europe cannot rely on the US for its security. Chatham House. Retrieved from www.chathamhouse.org/2025/02/trumps-electroshock-ukraine-ends-debate-europe-cannot-rely-us-its-securityGoogle Scholar
Mair, P. (2009). Representative versus responsible government. MPIfG Working Paper 09/8. Retrieved from https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_1232487/component/file_1232485/contentGoogle Scholar
Mair, P. (2013). Smaghi vs. the parties: Representative government and institutional constraints. In Schäfer, A. & Streeck, W. (Eds.), Politics in the age of austerity (pp. 143–168). Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Majnemer, J., & Repussard, E.-N. (2023). NATO’S new ‘Deterrence Baseline’ and the future of extended nuclear deterrence. Steyning: Wilton Park.Google Scholar
Maor, M., & Sulitzeanu-Kenan, R. (2016). Responsive change: Agency output response to reputational threats. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26(1), 31–44.Google Scholar
Mattelaer, A. (2021). Nuclear sharing and NATO as a ‘nuclear alliance’. In Frühling, S. & O’Neil, A. (Eds.), Alliances, nuclear weapons and escalation: Managing deterrence in the 21st century (pp. 123–131). Canberra: ANU Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattelaer, A. (2024). A nuclear alliance. In Olsen, J. A. (Ed.), Routledge handbook of NATO (pp. 93–105). Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehr Fortschritt wagen: Bündnis für Freiheit, Gerechtigkeit und Nachhaltigkeit. Koalitionsvertrag zwischen SPD, Bündnis 90/Die Grünen und FDP. (2021). Retrieved from www.bundesregierung.de/resource/blob/974430/1990812/93bd8d9b17717c351633635f9d7fba09/2021-12-10-koav2021-data.pdf?download=1Google Scholar
Meibauer, G., & LaRoche, C. D. (2024). German Atomwaffen and the superweapon trap. The War on the Rocks. Retrieved from https://warontherocks.com/2024/05/german-atomwaffen-and-the-superweapon-trap/Google Scholar
Meier, O., & Vieluf, M. (2021). Upsetting the nuclear order: How the rise of nationalist populism increases nuclear dangers. The Nonproliferation Review, 28(1–3), 13–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meijer, H., & Wyss, M. (Eds.). (2018). The handbook of European defence policies & armed forces. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mekata, M. (2018). How transnational civil society realized the Ban Treaty: An interview with Beatrice Fihn. Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament, 1(1), 79–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melissen, J. (1994). Nuclearizing NATO, 1957–1959: The ‘Anglo-Saxons’, nuclear sharing and the fourth country problem. Review of International Studies, 20(3), 253–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mello, P. A. (2012). Parliamentary peace or partisan politics? Democracies’ participation in the Iraq War. Journal of International Relations and Development, 15(3), 420–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mian, Z. (2009). Beyond the security debate: The moral and legal dimensions of abolition. In Perkovich, G. & Acton, J. M. (Eds.), Abolishing nuclear weapons: A debate (pp. 295–305). Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.Google Scholar
Michaels, J. H. (2022). ‘No annihilation without representation’: NATO nuclear use decision-making during the Cold War. Journal of Strategic Studies, 46(5), 1010–1036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miles, S. (2020). Engaging the evil empire: Washington, Moscow, and the beginning of the end of the Cold War. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken. (2012). Tactische diplomatie voor een Strategisch Concept: De Nederlandse inzet voor het NAVO Strategisch Concept 2010. Den Haag: Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken.Google Scholar
Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken. (2022). Kamerbrief uitvoering motie aanwezigheid bij vergadering het Verdrag verbod kernwapens. Retrieved from www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/kamerstukken/2022/08/16/kamerbrief-inzake-uitvoering-motie-21501-02-nr-2497-over-regeringsaanwezigheid-bij-de-vergadering-van-het-verdrag-inzake-het-verbod-op-kernwapensGoogle Scholar
Ministry of Defence of the Czech Republic. (2015). Security strategy of the Czech Republic. Retrieved from www.army.cz/images/id_8001_9000/8503/Security_Strategy_2015.pdfGoogle Scholar
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic. (2023). Security strategy of the Czech Republic. Retrieved from https://mzv.gov.cz/file/5161068/Security_Strategy_of_the_Czech_Republic_2023.pdfGoogle Scholar
Morcinek, M. (2018). Inspekteur der Luftwaffe muss gehen: Über einen Kampfjet gestolpert? ntv. Retrieved from www.n-tv.de/politik/Inspekteur-der-Luftwaffe-muss-gehen-article20340680.htmlGoogle Scholar
Moschella, M. (2024). Unexpected revolutionaries: How central banks made and unmade economic orthodoxy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Möser, R. (2019). ‘The major prize’: Apartheid South Africa’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, 1988–91. The Nonproliferation Review, 26(5–6), 559–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mudde, C. (2004). The populist Zeitgeist. Government and Opposition, 39(4), 541–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Müller, H., & Risse-Kappen, T. (1987). Origins of estrangement: The peace movement and the changed image of America in West Germany. International Security, 12(1), 52–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Defence Concept (Latvia). (2016).Google Scholar
National Security Concept (Estonia). (2017).Google Scholar
National Security Concept (Latvia). (2002).Google Scholar
National Security Strategy (Hungary). (2004).Google Scholar
National Security Strategy (Hungary). (2020).Google Scholar
National Security Strategy (Poland). (2020).Google Scholar
NATO. (2010). Active Engagement, Modern Defence. NATO 2010 Strategic Concept. Retrieved from www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_publications/20120214_strategic-concept-2010-eng.pdfGoogle Scholar
NATO. (2012). Deterrence and defence posture review. Retrieved from www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_87597.htmGoogle Scholar
NATO. (2014). Wales Summit Declaration Issued by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Wales. Retrieved from www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_112964.htm?selectedLocale=enGoogle Scholar
NATO. (2016). Warsaw Summit Communiqué Issued by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Warsaw 8–9 July 2016. Retrieved from www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_133169.htm?selectedLocale=enGoogle Scholar
NATO. (2017). North Atlantic Council Statement on the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Retrieved from www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_146954.htmGoogle Scholar
NATO. (2018). Brussels Summit Declaration Issued by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Brussels 11–12 July 2018. Retrieved from www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_156624.htm?selectedLocale=enGoogle Scholar
NATO. (2019). London Declaration Issued by the Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in London 3–4 December 2019. Retrieved from www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_171584.htm?selectedLocale=enGoogle Scholar
NATO. (2020a). NATO’s nuclear deterrence policy and forces. Retrieved from www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_50068.htmGoogle Scholar
NATO. (2020b). North Atlantic Council Statement as the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons Enters into Force. Retrieved from www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_180087.htmGoogle Scholar
NATO. (2021). Brussels Summit Communiqué. Retrieved from www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_185000.htmGoogle Scholar
NATO. (2022). NATO 2022 Strategic Concept. Retrieved from www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2022/6/pdf/290622-strategic-concept.pdfGoogle Scholar
NATO. (2023a). NATO’s nuclear deterrence policy and forces. Retrieved from www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_50068.htmGoogle Scholar
NATO. (2023b). Vilnius Summit Communiqué. Issued by NATO Heads of State and Government participating in the meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Vilnius 11 July 2023. Retrieved from www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_217320.htmGoogle Scholar
NATO. (2025). Secretary General’s Annual Report 2024. Retrieved from www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2025/4/pdf/sgar24-en.pdf#page=1Google Scholar
Nieuw-Vlaamse Alliantie. (2019). Voor Vlaanderen. Voor Vooruitgang. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu//down/originals/2020-1/21916_2019.pdfGoogle Scholar
Nobel Prize Outreach. (2025). International campaign to abolish nuclear weapons NobelPrize.Org. Retrieved from www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/2017/ican/facts/Google Scholar
Noël, A., & Thérien, J.-P. (2023). Left and right: The significance of a global distinction. In Maynard, J. L. & Haas, M. L. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of ideology and international relations (pp. 249–266). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nolan, J. E. (1989). Guardians of the arsenal: The politics of nuclear strategy. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Norman, D. J. (2019). Transnational civil society and informal public spheres in the nuclear non-proliferation regime. European Journal of International Relations, 25(2), 486–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, R. S., Arkin, W. M., & Burr, W. (1999). Where they were. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 55(6), 26–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, R. S., & Kristensen, H. M. (2004). US nuclear weapons in Europe, 1954–2004. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 60(6), 76–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nouripour, O. (2021). Multilateral für die EU als Friedensmacht, für Klimaschutz und Demokratie. Zeitschrift für Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik, 14(2), 165–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuti, L. (2010). Negotiating with the enemy and having problems with the allies: The impact of the non-proliferation treaty on transatlantic relations. In Hanhimäki, J. M., Soutou, G.-H., & Germond, B. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of transatlantic security (pp. 89–102). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuti, L. (2016). Extended deterrence and national ambitions: Italy’s nuclear policy, 1955–1962. Journal of Strategic Studies, 39(4), 559–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nuti, L. (2017). Italy as a hedging state? The problematic ratification of the non-proliferation treaty. In Bini, E. & Londero, I. (Eds.), Nuclear Italy. An international history of Italian Nuclear Policies during the Cold War (pp. 119–139). Trieste: Edizioni Università di Trieste.Google Scholar
Nuti, L. (2021). NATO’s role in nuclear non-proliferation and arms control: A (critical) history. Instituto Affari Internazionali. Retrieved from www.iai.it/en/pubblicazioni/natos-role-nuclear-non-proliferation-and-arms-control-critical-historyGoogle Scholar
NVMP Artsen voor Vrede. (2019). Urgent Appeal for a nuclear weapon free world: Connecting the medical-humanitarian and political perspectives. Final report of the NVMP-congres ‘Urgent Appeal for a nuclear weapon free world’ 26-11-2019 at The Hague Peace Palace. Retrieved from www.nvmp.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/EINDRAPPORT261119.pdfGoogle Scholar
Nystuen, G., Egeland, K., & Hugo, T. G. (2018). The TPNW: Setting the record straight. Norwegian Academy of International Law. Retrieved from http://intlaw.no/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/TPNW-Setting-the-record-straight-Oct-2018-WEB-1.pdfGoogle Scholar
Obranná stratégia SR 2021. (2021). Retrieved from www.mosr.sk/data/files/4286_obranna-strategia-sr-2021.pdfGoogle Scholar
Oktay, S. (2022). Governing abroad: Coalition politics and foreign policy in Europe. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onderco, M. (2017). Why nuclear weapon ban treaty is unlikely to fulfil its promise. Global Affairs, 3(4-5), 391–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onderco, M. (2018). Parliamentarians in government delegations: An old question still not answered. Cooperation and Conflict, 53(3), 411–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onderco, M. (2019). Partisan views of Russia: Analyzing European party electoral manifestos since 1991. Contemporary Security Policy, 40(4), 526–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onderco, M. (2020). The programme for promoting nuclear non-proliferation and the NPT extension. The International History Review, 42(4), 851–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onderco, M. (2021). The Dutch debate: Activism vs. pragmatism. In Morgan, A. & Péczeli, A. (Eds.), Europe’s evolving deterrence discourse (pp. 39–50). Livermore, CA: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.Google Scholar
Onderco, M. (2024). German public opinion on nuclear weapons: Before and after the Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. In Kühn, U. (Ed.), Germany and nuclear weapons in the 21st century: Nuclear Zeitenwende? (pp. 136–154). Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onderco, M., Etienne, T. W., & Smetana, M. (2022). Ideology and the red button: How ideology shapes nuclear weapons’ use preferences in Europe. Foreign Policy Analysis, 18(4), orac022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onderco, M., & Joosen, R. (2022). Nuclear weapons in the Tweede Kamer: Analysis of nuclear motions in the Dutch House of Representatives in times of contestation. Global Studies Quarterly, 2(3), ksac028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onderco, M., & Kühn, U. (2025). Organizing nuclear policies in Europe: Of bricoleur plurality, architect absence, and spoiler disruption. International Politics, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41311-024-00640-2Google Scholar
Onderco, M., & Smetana, M. (2021). German views on US nuclear weapons in Europe: Public and elite perspectives. European Security, 30(4), 630–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onderco, M., Smetana, M., & Etienne, T. W. (2023). Hawks in the making? European public views on nuclear weapons post-Ukraine. Global Policy, 14(2), 305–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onderco, M., & Vignoli, V. (2022). The supporters of the ban treaty are not a monolith. Don’t treat them as such. European Leadership Network. Retrieved from www.europeanleadershipnetwork.org/commentary/the-supporters-of-the-ban-treaty-are-not-a-monolith-dont-treat-them-as-such/Google Scholar
Oppenheimer, A. G. (2010). Conflicts of solidarity: Nuclear weapons, liberation movements, and the politics of peace in the Federal Republic of Germany, 1945–1975. Chicago: The University of Chicago. Retrieved from www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/conflicts-solidarity-nuclear-weapons-liberation/docview/756452922/se-2?accountid=170813Google Scholar
Orient, J. M. (1988). International physicians for the prevention of nuclear war: Messiahs of the nuclear age? The Lancet, 332(8621), 1185–1186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostermann, F., & Stahl, B. (2022). Theorizing populist radical-right foreign policy: Ideology and party positioning in France and Germany. Foreign Policy Analysis, 18(3), orac006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, J. M. (2004). Democratic peace research: Whence and whither? International Politics, 41(4), 605–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, B. I., & Shapiro, R. Y. (1992). The rational public: Fifty years of trends in Americans’ policy preferences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parke, M. (2025). Opening Remarks at ICAN Campaigner Forum. Presented at the ICAN Campaigner Forum, Riverside Church, New York.Google Scholar
Partij van de Arbeid. (2010). Iedereen telt mee: De kracht van Nederland. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu/down/originals/22320_2010.pdfGoogle Scholar
Partij van de Arbeid. (2012). Nederland – Sterker & Socialer. Verkiezingsprogramma Tweede Kamerverkiezingen 2012. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu//down/originals/2015-1/22320_2012.pdfGoogle Scholar
Partij van de Arbeid. (2014). Onze toekomst is sociaal. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu//down/originals/2019-1/21230_2014.pdfGoogle Scholar
Partij van de Arbeid. (2017). Een verbonden samenleving. Verkiezingsprogramma 2017. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu//down/originals/2018-1/22320_2017.pdfGoogle Scholar
Partij van de Arbeid. (2021). Verkiezingsprogramma PvdA 2021–2025: Ons plan voor een eerlijker en fatsoenlijker Nederland. Retrieved from www.pvda.nl/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/PvdA-verkiezingsprogramma-2021-2025-Ons-plan-voor-een-eerlijker-en-fatsoenlijker-Nederland.pdfGoogle Scholar
Partij voor de Dieren. (2017). Hou vast aan je idealen. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu//down/originals/2018-1/22951_2017.pdfGoogle Scholar
Partij voor de Dieren. (2021). Verkiezingsprogramma Partij voor de Dieren Tweede Kamerverkiezingen Plan B: Idealisme is het nieuwe realisme. Retrieved from www.partijvoordedieren.nl/uploads/algemeen/Verkiezingsprogramma-Partij-voor-de-Dieren-Tweede-Kamerverkiezingen-2021.pdfGoogle Scholar
Partij voor de Vrijheid. (2010). De agenda van hoop en optimisme. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu//down/originals/22722_2010.pdfGoogle Scholar
Patton, T., Philippe, S., & Mian, Z. (2019). Fit for purpose: An evolutionary strategy for the implementation and verification of the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons. Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament, 2(2), 387–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PAX No Nukes. (2016). Verbied kernwapens in Nederland. Voorstel aan de Tweede Kamer. Burgerinitiatief Teken tegen kernwapens [bijlage bij kamerstuk 34419 nr 1]. Retrieved from https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/blg-688950Google Scholar
PAX No Nukes. (2018). Largest Dutch pension fund ABP to divest from nuclear weapons. Retrieved from https://nonukes.nl/largest-dutch-pension-fund-abp-divest-nuclear-weapons/Google Scholar
Péczeli, A. (2013). Central European Perspectives on NATO’s Nuclear Policy. Paper presented at the Project on Nuclear Issues Fall Conference, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Pelopidas, B. (2017). The unbearable lightness of luck: Three sources of overconfidence in the manageability of nuclear crises. European Journal of International Security, 2(2), 240–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelopidas, B. (2021). Repenser les choix nucléaires. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.Google Scholar
Pelopidas, B., & Verschuren, S. C. J. (2023). Writing IR after COVID-19: Reassessing political possibilities, good faith, and policy-relevant scholarship on climate change mitigation and nuclear disarmament. Global Studies Quarterly, 3(1), ksad006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pereira, M. M., & Öhberg, P. (2023). The expertise paradox: How policy expertise can hinder responsiveness. British Journal of Political Science, 54(2), 474–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perier, M. (2019, 15 October). Peace, democracy and nuclear weapons. Interview with Kjølv Egeland. Retrieved from www.sciencespo.fr/ceri/en/content/peace-democracy-and-nuclear-weapons-interview-kjolv-egelandGoogle Scholar
Permanent Mission of the Federal Republic of Germany to the United Nations. (2023). General Statement by the Federal Republic of Germany during the Preparatory Committee for the 2026 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Retrieved from https://reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Disarmament-fora/npt/prepcom23/statements/31July_Germany.pdfGoogle Scholar
Pesu, M., & Juntunen, T. (2023). Finland in a nuclear alliance: Recalibrating the dual-track mindset on deterrence and arms control. FIIA Briefing Paper 375. Retrieved from www.fiia.fi/en/publication/finland-in-a-nuclear-allianceGoogle Scholar
Peters, D., Wagner, W., & Deitelhoff, N. (2010). The parliamentary control of European security policy. Oslo: ARENA.Google Scholar
Peters, R. (2023). NATO’s nuclear posture needs updating. The Heritage Foundation. Retrieved from www.heritage.org/defense/report/natos-nuclear-posture-needs-updatingGoogle Scholar
Petrova, M. H. (2018). Weapons prohibitions through immanent critique: NGOs as emancipatory and (de) securitising actors in security governance. Review of International Studies, 44(4), 619–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philippe, S., & Statius, T. (2021). Toxique: Enquête sur les essais nucléaires français en Polynésie. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Pifer, S. (2015). US-Russia relations in the Obama Era: From reset to refreeze? In Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hamburg (Ed.), OSCE Yearbook 2014 (pp. 111–124). Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pilat, J. F. (2016). A reversal of fortunes? Extended deterrence and assurance in Europe and East Asia. Journal of Strategic Studies, 39(4), 580–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Platon. (2007, 31 December). A Tsar is Born [A Photograph for TIME Magazine]. TIME, 46–47.Google Scholar
Pomper, M. A., Alberque, W., Brown, J., Marshall, L., Moon, W. M., & Sokov, N. (2022). Everything Counts: Building a Control Regime for Nonstrategic Nuclear Warheads in Europe. CNS Occasional Paper 55. Retrieved from https://nonproliferation.org/op55-everything-counts-building-a-control-regime-for-nonstrategic-nuclear-warheads-in-europe/Google Scholar
Portela, C. (2014). The rise and fall of Spain’s ‘nuclear exceptionalism’. European Security, 23(1), 90–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potter, W. C. (2017). Disarmament diplomacy and the Nuclear Ban Treaty. Survival, 59(4), 75–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PRESIDENT’S VISIT, Paris, May 31-June 2, 1961. Memorandum of Conversation. (1961). Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963, Volume XIV, Berlin Crisis, 1961–1962. Retrieved from https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v14/d30Google Scholar
Press, D. G., Sagan, S. D., & Valentino, B. A. (2013). Atomic aversion: Experimental evidence on taboos, traditions, and the non-use of nuclear weapons. American Political Science Review, 107(1), 188–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, R. (1998). Reversing the gun sights: Transnational civil society targets land mines. International Organization, 52(3), 613–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PS. (2014). Plus fortes ensemble – Pour un avenir plus juste. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu//down/originals/2022-1/21322_2014.pdfGoogle Scholar
Putnam, R. D. (1993). What makes democracy work? National Civic Review, 22(2), 101–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rapnouil, M. L., Varma, T., & Witney, N. (2018). Eyes Tight Shut: European attitudes towards nuclear deterrence. European Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved from https://ecfr.eu/special/eyes_tight_shut_european_attitudes_towards_nuclear_deterrence/Google Scholar
Rathbun, B. C. (2004). Partisan interventions: European party politics and peace enforcement in the Balkans. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rathbun, B. C. (2012). Trust in international cooperation: International security institutions, domestic politics, and American multilateralism. Cambridge, UK & New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rathbun, B. C. (2013). Steeped in international affairs?: The foreign policy views of the tea party. Foreign Policy Analysis, 9(1), 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rauh, C. (2016). A responsive technocracy? EU politicisation and the consumer policies of the European Commission. Colchester, UK: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
Raunio, T., & Wagner, W. (2017). Towards parliamentarisation of foreign and security policy? West European Politics, 40(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reaching Critical Will. (2024). NPT News in Review, Vol. 19, No. 2. Retrieved from https://reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Disarmament-fora/npt/NIR2024/NIR19.2.pdfGoogle Scholar
Rendall, M. (2007). Nuclear weapons and intergenerational exploitation. Security Studies, 16(4), 525–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rendall, M. (2022). Nuclear war as a predictable surprise. Global Policy, 13(5), 782–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Risse-Kappen, T. (1983). Déjà Vu: Deployment of nuclear weapons in West Germany historical controversies. Bulletin of Peace Proposals, 14(4), 327–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Risse-Kappen, T. (1988). The zero option: INF, West Germany, and arms control. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Risse-Kappen, T. (1991). Public opinion, domestic structure, and foreign policy in liberal democracies. World Politics, 43(4), 479–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritchie, N. (2013). Valuing and devaluing nuclear weapons. Contemporary Security Policy, 34(1), 146–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritchie, N. (2014). Waiting for Kant: Devaluing and delegitimizing nuclear weapons. International Affairs, 90(3), 601–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritchie, N. (2016). Pathways to nuclear disarmament: Delegitimizing nuclear violence. Paper presented at the United Nations General Assembly Open-ended Working Group on ‘Taking forward multilateral nuclear disarmament negotiations’ (11 May 2016), Palais de Nations, Geneva.Google Scholar
Ritchie, N., & Kmentt, A. (2021). Universalising the TPNW: Challenges and opportunities. Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament, 4(1), 70–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritchie, N., & Kupriyanov, M. (2023). Understanding the humanitarian consequences and risks of nuclear weapons. Federal Ministry of European and International Affairs (Republic of Austria) & University of York. Retrieved from www.bmeia.gv.at/fileadmin/user_upload/Zentrale/Aussenpolitik/Abruestung/Understanding_the_Humanitarian_Consequences_and_Risks_of_Nuclear_Weapons.pdfGoogle Scholar
Robinson, T. (2019). Interview with Susi Snyder, Don’t Bank on the Bomb. Pressenza International Press Agency. Retrieved from www.pressenza.com/2019/07/interview-with-susi-snyder-dont-bank-on-the-bomb/Google Scholar
Rudolf, P. (2020). Deutschland, die Nato und die nukleare Abschreckung SWP-Studie 2020/S. Retrieved from www.swp-berlin.org/10.18449/2020S11/Google Scholar
Ruff, T. (2018). Negotiating the UN treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons and the role of ICAN. Global Change, Peace & Security, 30(2), 233–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russett, B., & Oneal, J. R. (2001). Triangulating peace: Democracy, interdependence, and international organizations. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Rynning, S. (2024). NATO: From cold war to Ukraine, a history of the world’s most powerful alliance. London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Sagan, S. D. (2009). Shared responsibilities for nuclear disarmament. Daedalus, 138(4), 157–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sagan, S. D., & Valentino, B. A. (2017). Revisiting Hiroshima in Iran: What Americans really think about using nuclear weapons and killing noncombatants. International Security, 42(1), 41–79.Google Scholar
Sagan, S. D., & Valentino, B. A. (2018). Not just a war theory: American public opinion on ethics in combat. International Studies Quarterly, 62(3), 548–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saldžiūnas, V. (2020). JAV branduoliniai ginklai Europoje vėl skelia žiežirbas: kaip tai atsilieps Lietuvai [US nuclear weapons are sparking again in Europe: How this will affect Lithuania]. DELFI Žinios. Retrieved from www.delfi.lt/news/daily/lithuania/jav-branduoliniai-ginklai-europoje-vel-skelia-ziezirbas-kaip-tai-atsilieps-lietuvai.d?id=84352581Google Scholar
Sasikumar, K. (2007). India’s emergence as a ‘responsible’ nuclear power. International Journal, 62(4), 825–844.Google Scholar
Sauer, T. (2014). Ceci n’est pas une…American nuclear weapon in Belgium. European Security, 23(1), 58–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunders, E. N. (2014). Good democratic leadership in foreign affairs: An elite-centered approach. In Kane, J. & Patapan, H. (Eds.), Good democratic leadership: On prudence and judgment in modern democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199683840.003.0010Google Scholar
Saunders, E. N. (2019). The domestic politics of nuclear choices: A review essay. International Security, 44(2), 146–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saunders, E. N. (2024). The insiders’ game: How elites make war and peace. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savage, C. (2007). Takeover: The return of the imperial presidency and the subversion of American democracy. New York: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
Sayle, T. A. (2019). Enduring alliance. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sayle, T. A. (2020). A nuclear education: The origins of NATO’s Nuclear Planning Group. Journal of Strategic Studies, 43(6–7), 920–956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scarry, E. (2014). Thermonuclear monarchy: Choosing between democracy and doom. New York: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Schapper, A., & Dee, M. (2024). Super-networks shaping international agreements: Comparing the climate change and nuclear weapons arenas. International Studies Quarterly, 68(1), sqad105.Google Scholar
Schelling, T. C. (1960). The strategy of conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Schelling, T. C. (1966). Arms and influence. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Schindler, F. (2022). Der Atomwaffen-Plan der AfD-Jugend. Retrieved from www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/plus241641601/AfD-Der-Atomwaffen-Plan-der-Jungen-Alternative.htmlGoogle Scholar
Schneider, J. (2016). Amerikanische Allianzen und nukleare Nichtverbreitung: Die Beendigung von Kernwaffenaktivitäten bei Verbündeten der USA. Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuette, L. A. (2021). Why NATO survived Trump: The neglected role of Secretary-General Stoltenberg. International Affairs, 97(6), 1863–1881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulte, P. (2015). NATO’s protracted debate over nuclear weapons. In Von Hlatky, S. & Wenger, A. (Eds.), The future of extended deterrence (pp. 107–134). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Schultz, K. A. (1998). Domestic opposition and signaling in international crises. American Political Science Review, 92(4), 829–844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, D. (1983). NATO’s nuclear dilemmas. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
Science and Security Board. (2024). A moment of historic danger: It is still 90 seconds to midnight. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Retrieved from https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/current-time/Google Scholar
Sechser, T. S. (2016). Sharing the bomb: How foreign nuclear deployments shape nonproliferation and deterrence. The Nonproliferation Review, 23(3–4), 443–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Security Environment Review (Belgium). (2019).Google Scholar
Security Strategy of the Czech Republic 2011 (Czechia). (2011).Google Scholar
Shirobokova, E. (2018). The Netherlands and the prohibition of nuclear weapons. The Nonproliferation Review, 25(1–2), 37–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinistra Ecologia Libertà. (2013). Benvenuta Sinistra. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu//down/originals/32230_2013.pdfGoogle Scholar
Smetana, M., & Onderco, M. (2022). Elite-public gaps in attitudes to nuclear weapons: New evidence from a survey of German citizens and parliamentarians. International Studies Quarterly, 66(2), sqac017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smetana, M., Onderco, M., & Etienne, T. (2021). Do Germany and the Netherlands want to say goodbye to US nuclear weapons? Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 77(4), 215–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smetana, M., & Wunderlich, C. (2021). Forum: Nonuse of nuclear weapons in world politics: Toward the third generation of ‘Nuclear Taboo’ research. International Studies Review, 23(3), 1072–1099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, G. H. (1984). The security dilemma in alliance politics. World Politics, 36(4), 461–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, S. (2024). About. Retrieved from https://susisnyder.com/about/Google Scholar
Socialistische Partij. (2010). Een beter Nederland voor minder geld. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu/down/originals/22220_2010.pdfGoogle Scholar
Socialistische Partij. (2012). Nieuw vertrouwen. Verkiezingsprogramma SP 2013–2017. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu//down/originals/2015-1/22220_2012.pdfGoogle Scholar
Socialistische Partij. (2017). Programma voor een sociaal Nederland. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu//down/originals/2018-1/22220_2017.pdfGoogle Scholar
Socialistische Partij. (2021). Stel een daad: Verkiezingsprogramma van de SP voor de Tweede Kamerverkiezingen van 17 maart 2021. Retrieved from www.sp.nl/sites/default/files/verkiezingsprogramma_2021-2025.pdfGoogle Scholar
Somerville, A., Kearns, I., & Chalmers, M. (2012). Poland, NATO and non-strategic nuclear weapons in Europe. London: Royal United Services Institute.Google Scholar
Sonne, W. (2018). Leben mit der Bombe: Atomwaffen in Deutschland. Wiesbaden: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorg, A., & Wucherpfennig, J. (2023). Do foreign military deployments provide assurance? Unpacking the micro-mechanisms of burden sharing in alliances. International Studies Quarterly, 68(3), sqae107.Google Scholar
Sorg, T. A. (2023). A theory of U.S. nuclear weapon deployments (unpublished paper).Google Scholar
Sozialdemokratische Partei. (2021). Aus Respekt vor deiner Zukunft. Das Zukunftsprogramm der SPD. Retrieved from www.spd.de/fileadmin/Dokumente/Beschluesse/Programm/SPD-Zukunftsprogramm.pdfGoogle Scholar
Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschland. (2013). Das wir entscheidet. Das Regierungsprogramm 2013–2017. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu//down/originals/41320_2013.pdfGoogle Scholar
sp.a. (2014). Verkiezingen 2014 – Programma sp.a. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu//down/originals/2019-1/21321_2014.pdfGoogle Scholar
sp.a. (2019). Zekerheid voor iedereen. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu//down/originals/2020-1/21321_2019.pdfGoogle Scholar
Spanish Security Strategy – Everyone’s Responsibility (Spain). (2011).Google Scholar
SPD. (2009). Sozial und Demokratisch. Anpacken. Für Deutschland. Das Regierungsprogramm der SPD. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu/down/originals/41320_2009.pdfGoogle Scholar
SPD. (2017). Es ist Zeit für mehr Gerechtigkeit: Zukunft sichern, Europa stärken. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu/down/originals/2017-2/41320_2017.pdfGoogle Scholar
Spektor, M. (2023). The upside of western hypocrisy. Foreign Affairs. Retrieved from www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/upside-western-hypocrisy-global-south-americaGoogle Scholar
Sprenger, S. (2020). Germany’s Defence Ministry is under the gun to name a Tornado replacement. Defense News. Retrieved from www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/04/20/germanys-defence-ministry-is-under-the-gun-to-name-a-tornado-replacementGoogle Scholar
Sprenger, S. (2022). Germany to buy F-35 warplanes for nuclear deterrence. Defense News. Retrieved from www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2022/03/14/germany-to-buy-f-35-warplanes-for-nuclear-deterrence/Google Scholar
The State Defence Concept (Latvia). (2012).Google Scholar
Stavridis, S., & Jančić, D. (Eds.). (2017). Parliamentary diplomacy in European and global governance. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoeckel, F., Mérola, V., Thompson, J., Lyons, B., & Reifler, J. (2023). Public perceptions and misperceptions of political authority in the European Union. European Union Politics, 25(1), 42–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Strategic Vision for Defence (Belgium). (2016).Google Scholar
Suchy, P., & Thayer, B. A. (2014). Weapons as political symbolism: The role of US tactical nuclear weapons in Europe. European Security, 23(4), 509–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sukin, L., & Lanoszka, A. (2022). Poll: Russia’s nuclear saber-rattling is rattling neighbors’ nerves. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Retrieved from https://thebulletin.org/2022/04/poll-russias-nuclear-saber-rattling-is-rattling-neighbors-nerves/Google Scholar
Sus, M., & Kulesa, Ł. (2023). Breaking the silence: Explaining the dynamics behind Poland’s desire to join NATO nuclear sharing in light of Russian aggression against Ukraine. The Nonproliferation Review, 30(4–6), 241–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sus, M., & Kulesa, Ł. (2024). Tempting but (still) unrealistic? Explaining the dynamics behind Poland’s will to join NATO nuclear sharing in light of Russian aggression against Ukraine [Working Paper].Google Scholar
Tallberg, J., & Zürn, M. (2019). The legitimacy and legitimation of international organizations: Introduction and framework. The Review of International Organizations, 14(4), 581–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tannenwald, N. (2002). The nuclear taboo the United States and the non-use of nuclear weapons since 1945. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
ter Veer, B. (1988). The struggle against the deployment of cruise missiles the learning process of the Dutch Peace Movement. Bulletin of Peace Proposals, 19(2), 213–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tertrais, B. (2017). ‘On The Brink’—Really? Revisiting nuclear close calls since 1945. The Washington Quarterly, 40(2), 51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Economist. (2025, 12 March). Europe thinks the unthinkable on a nuclear bomb. Retrieved from www.economist.com/international/2025/03/12/europe-thinks-the-unthinkable-on-a-nuclear-bombGoogle Scholar
The Lancet. (1991). IPPNW-resting on its Nobel laurels? The Lancet, 338(8759), 90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Simons Foundation. (2007). Global public opinion on nuclear weapons. Retrieved from www.thesimonsfoundation.ca/sites/default/files/2007%20Poll%20on%20Global%20Public%20Opinion%20on%20Attitudes%20Towards%20Nuclear%20Weapons_0.pdfGoogle Scholar
The White House. (2025). Remarks by Vice President Vance at the Munich Security Conference. Retrieved from www.whitehouse.gov/remarks/2025/02/remarks-by-vice-president-vance-at-the-munich-security-conference/Google Scholar
Thomeczek, J. P. (2025). Moderate in power, populist in opposition? Die Linke’s populist communication in the German states. Journal of Political Ideologies, 30(1), 155–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trachtenberg, M. (1999). A constructed peace: The making of the European Settlement, 1945–1963. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal. (2015). Nucleaire ontwapening en non-proliferatie. Motie van het lid Sjoerdsma [33.783, nr 19]. Retrieved from https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst-33783-19.htmlGoogle Scholar
Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal. (2016a). Burgerinitiatief Teken tegen kernwapens. Brief van de minister van buitelandse zaken [34419, nr 2]. Retrieved from https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst-34419-2.htmlGoogle Scholar
Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal. (2016b). Motie van de leden Sjoerdsma en Servaes over een impuls aan wereldwijde nucleaire ontwapening. Retrieved from www.tweedekamer.nl/kamerstukken/detail?id=2016Z08726&did=2016D18014Google Scholar
Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal. (2016c). Motie van de leden Sjoerdsma en Van Bommel over inzage in de bilaterale verdragen tussen de VS en Nederland. Retrieved from www.tweedekamer.nl/kamerstukken/detail?id=2016Z08725&did=2016D18012Google Scholar
Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal. (2016d). Motie van het lid Servaes c.s. over doeltreffende maatregelen om te komen tot een kernwapenvrije wereld. Retrieved from www.tweedekamer.nl/kamerstukken/detail?id=2016Z08727&did=2016D18016Google Scholar
Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal. (2016e). Motie van het lid Voordewind over het gefaseerd afstoten van de Nederlandse kernwapentaak. Retrieved from www.tweedekamer.nl/kamerstukken/detail?id=2016Z08729&did=2016D18018Google Scholar
Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal. (2019). Hoorzitting / rondetafelgesprek: Kabinetsreactie op AIV-advies inzake kernwapens. Retrieved from www.tweedekamer.nl/debat_en_vergadering/commissievergaderingen/details?id=2019A02694Google Scholar
Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal. (2022). Motie van de leden Jasper Van Dijk en Sjoerdsma (21 501-02). Retrieved from https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/kst-21501-02-2497.htmlGoogle Scholar
Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal. (2024a). Burgerinitiatief. Retrieved from www.tweedekamer.nl/kamerleden_en_commissies/commissies/verz/burgerinitiatievenGoogle Scholar
Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal. (2024b). De spanning in Europa m.b.t. kernwapens (hoorzitting). Commissie: Buitenlandse Zaken. Retrieved from www.tweedekamer.nl/debat_en_vergadering/commissievergaderingen/details?id=2024A00250Google Scholar
Udum, Ş. (2020). Issues in Turkish-U.S. relations: A politico-psychological analysis through problematic cases. In Örmeci, O. & Işıksal, H. (Eds.), Historical examinations and current issues in Turkish-American relations (pp. 221–243). Berlin: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
United Nations. (2022). Draft Vienna Declaration of the 1st Meeting of States Parties of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons ‘Our Commitment to a World Free of Nuclear Weapons’. TPNW/MSP/2022/CRP.8. Retrieved from https://reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Disarmament-fora/nuclear-weapon-ban/1msp/documents/draft-declaration.pdfGoogle Scholar
Vaddi, P., & Narang, V. (2025). Building a Euro deterrent: Easier said than done. Strategic Simplicity. Retrieved from https://strategicsimplicity.substack.com/p/building-a-euro-deterrent-easierGoogle Scholar
Valášek, T. (2011). Central Europe and NATO’s nuclear deterrent. In Chalmers, M. & Somerville, A. (Eds.), If the bombs go: European perspectives on NATO’s nuclear debate (pp. 21–28). London: The Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies.Google Scholar
van der Harst, J. (1997). Kernwapens? Geen bezwaar. Transaktie, 26(4), 295–517.Google Scholar
van der Veer, R. A. (2020). Technocratic responsiveness. In Bertsou, E. & Caramani, D. (Eds.), The technocratic challenge to democracy (pp. 75–90). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Veer, R. A. (2021). Audience heterogeneity, costly signaling, and threat prioritization: Bureaucratic reputation-building in the EU. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 31(1), 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Veer, R. A., & Meibauer, G. (2023). Populism, technocracy and the (de)legitimation of international organizations (working paper).Google Scholar
van der Zeijden, W. (2014). A Dutch revolt? The salience of the nonstrategic nuclear weapons issue in Dutch politics. European Security, 23(1), 45–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, R. (2012). ‘A mass psychosis’: The Netherlands and NATO’s dual-track decision, 1978–1979. Cold War History, 12(3), 381–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, R., & Schaaper, J. (2015). The Inter-Church Peace Council and the nuclear arms race. NPIHP Research Updates. Retrieved from www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/the-IKV-and-the-nuclear-arms-raceGoogle Scholar
Vandier, P. (2025). Deterrence in the third nuclear age. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ven Bruusgaard, K. (2020). Russian nuclear strategy and conventional inferiority. Journal of Strategic Studies, 44(1), 3–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vignarca, F. (2023). Disarmo Nucleare. È ora di mettere al bando le armi nucleari. Prima che sia troppo tardi. Milano: Altra Economia.Google Scholar
Vignoli, V. (2020). Where are the doves? Explaining party support for military operations abroad in Italy. West European Politics, 43(7), 1455–1479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vlaamsvredesinstituut. (2014). Opinies over kernwapens op Belgisch grondgebied. Retrieved from https://vlaamsvredesinstituut.eu/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/factsheet_opiniepeiling_kernwapens.pdfGoogle Scholar
Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie. (2017). Zeker Nederland. VVD Verkiezingsprogramma 2017–2021. Retrieved from https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu//down/originals/2018-1/22420_2017.pdfGoogle Scholar
Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie. (2021). Verkiezingsprogramma 2021–2025 Samen aan de slag: Nieuwe keuzes voor een nieuwe tijd. Retrieved from www.vvd.nl/content/uploads/2021/02/VP-VVD-2021-2025-def.pdfGoogle Scholar
Volpe, T., & Kühn, U. (2017). Germany’s nuclear education: Why a few elites are testing a taboo. The Washington Quarterly, 40(3), 7–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Hlatky, S., & Lambert-Deslandes, É. (2024). The Ukraine war and nuclear sharing in NATO. International Affairs, 100(2), 509–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Hlatky, S., & Wenger, A. (Eds.). (2015). The future of extended deterrence: The United States, NATO, and beyond. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Wachs, L. (2023). Russian nuclear roulette? Elites and public debates on nuclear weapons in Moscow after Ukraine. The Nonproliferation Review, 30(4–6), 173–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wachs, L., & Horovitz, L. (2023). Frankreichs Atomwaffen und Europa: Optionen für eine besser abgestimmte Abschreckungspolitik. SWP-Aktuell 2023/A 07. Retrieved from www.swp-berlin.org/publikation/frankreichs-atomwaffen-und-europaGoogle Scholar
Wagner, W. (2020). The democratic politics of military interventions: Political parties, contestation, and decisions to use force abroad. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, W., Herranz-Surrallés, A., Kaarbo, J., & Ostermann, F. (2018). Party politics at the water’s edge: Contestation of military operations in Europe. European Political Science Review, 10(4), 537–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, W., Peters, D., & Glahn, C. (2010). Parliamentary war powers around the world, 1989–2004. A new dataset [Occasional Paper No. 22]. Geneva: Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces.Google Scholar
Wax, E. (2024). Trump vowed he’d ‘never’ help Europe if it’s attacked, top EU official says. Politico. Retrieved from www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-vow-never-help-europe-attack-thierry-breton/Google Scholar
Weisglas, F., & de Boer, G. (2007). Parliamentary diplomacy. The Hague Journal of Diplomacy, 2(1), 93–99.Google Scholar
Wellerstein, A. (2021). Restricted data: The history of nuclear secrecy in the United States. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welty, E. (2020). Religious advocacy and activism for the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons. In Bolton, M. B., Njeri, S., & Benjamin-Britton, T. (Eds.), Global activism and humanitarian disarmament (pp. 103–138). Cham: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wenzelburger, G., & Böller, F. (2020). Bomb or build? How party ideologies affect the balance of foreign aid and defence spending. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 22(1), 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White Book on National Security of the Republic of Poland (Poland). (2013). Warsaw: The National Security Bureau.Google Scholar
White Paper (Greece). (2014).Google Scholar
White Paper on German Security Policy and the Future of the Bundeswehr (Germany). (2016).Google Scholar
Wittkopf, E. R. (1981). The structure of foreign policy attitudes: An alternate view. Social Science Quarterly, 62(1), 108.Google Scholar
Wittner, L. S. (2003). Toward nuclear abolition: A history of the world nuclear disarmament movement, 1971 to the present. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, M. (2021). Europe’s new technocracy: Boundaries of public participation in EU institutions. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 59(2), 459–473.Google Scholar
Woolf, A. F. (2021). Nonstrategic Nuclear Weapons. Retrieved from https://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL32572.pdfGoogle Scholar
Working Worldwide for the Security of the Netherlands – An Integrated International Security Strategy 2018–2022 (Netherlands). (2018).Google Scholar
Yost, D. S. (2011). The US debate on NATO nuclear deterrence. International Affairs, 87(6), 1401–1438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yost, D. S., & Glad, T. C. (1982). West German party politics and theater nuclear modernization since 1977. Armed Forces & Society, 8(4), 525–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhelyazkova, A., Bølstad, J., & Meijers, M. J. (2019). Understanding responsiveness in European Union politics: Introducing the debate. Journal of European Public Policy, 26(11), 1715–1723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Accessibility standard: WCAG 2.0 A

Why this information is here

This section outlines the accessibility features of this content - including support for screen readers, full keyboard navigation and high-contrast display options. This may not be relevant for you.

Accessibility Information

The HTML of this chapter conforms to version 2.0 of the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG), ensuring core accessibility principles are addressed and meets the basic (A) level of WCAG compliance, addressing essential accessibility barriers.

Content Navigation

Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.

Reading Order & Textual Equivalents

Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.
Short alternative textual descriptions
You get concise descriptions (for images, charts, or media clips), ensuring you do not miss crucial information when visual or audio elements are not accessible.
Full alternative textual descriptions
You get more than just short alt text: you have comprehensive text equivalents, transcripts, captions, or audio descriptions for substantial non‐text content, which is especially helpful for complex visuals or multimedia.

Structural and Technical Features

ARIA roles provided
You gain clarity from ARIA (Accessible Rich Internet Applications) roles and attributes, as they help assistive technologies interpret how each part of the content functions.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Bibliography
  • Michal Onderco, Erasmus University Rotterdam
  • Book: Europe's Nuclear Umbrella
  • Online publication: 17 December 2025
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009698665.010
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Bibliography
  • Michal Onderco, Erasmus University Rotterdam
  • Book: Europe's Nuclear Umbrella
  • Online publication: 17 December 2025
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009698665.010
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Bibliography
  • Michal Onderco, Erasmus University Rotterdam
  • Book: Europe's Nuclear Umbrella
  • Online publication: 17 December 2025
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009698665.010
Available formats
×