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