1990/01/01 by Paul F. Diehl · 1 citation
Social Sciences · #Nuclear Issues and Defense #Global Peace and Security Dynamics #Arms control #Political science #Control (management) #Political economy #Law #Sociology #Economics #Management
paper · doi:10.2307/2150937
openalex publication_date 1990/01/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/23
It is an old cliche that the future is merely a repetition of the past. Yet the formulation of public policy relies heavily on precedent. As analyses of the budgeting process have demonstrated, prior governmental action significantly influences the timing and configuration of future actions. I Continuity in U.S. policy has been particularly evident in the area of arms control. Negotiations between the superpowers have most often focused on issues suggested by or left unresolved at earlier parlays. The upgrading of the Hot Line agreement is a recent illustration of this point. Current arms control issues also reflect this tendency; the pursuit of a comprehensive test ban is a logical follow-up to the Limited Test Ban Treaty of 1963. Prior arms control policies continue to shape future negotiations for two primary reasons. First, arms control negotiations have been explicitly designed as continuing enterprises; agreements were sought on relatively narrow grounds, and more difficult issues were left to further discussions. In addition, many agreements were constructed as interim instruments serving as bridges to future efforts at arms limitation in the same issue area. Beyond that strategy, prior arms control policies have influenced future initiatives because of the impact of bipartisanship in foreign policy. In the first twenty years of the post-World War II era, foreign policy was made primarily through consensus, and its direction was not the subject of divisive political debate. Correspondingly, changes in the political composition