Topicality – ADA Novice Packet

-----Resolution Wording-----

2019-20 Resolution – International Space Cooperation Resolved: The United States Federal Government should establish a national space policy substantially increasing its international space cooperation with the People’s Republic of China and/or the Russian Federation in one or more of the following areas: • arms control of space weapons; • exchange and management of space situational awareness information; • joint human spaceflight for deep space exploration; • planetary defense; • space traffic management; • space-based solar power.From CEDA Website: http://cedadebate.org/1617resolution

**Negative**

1NC Shells

1NC – Arms Control TA. Interpretation – arms control limits military weapons via legally binding agreements Bass, 2008 – MA in European Studies (Richard, “Negotiating Nuclear Weapons”, March p. https://essay.utwente.nl/59277/1/scriptie_R_Baas.pdf //Dinger) ****NCC’19 Novice Packet****2.1.1. Development of Arms Control Theory It is generally believed that arms control belongs to a series of closely related perspectives of which the central them focuses on “peace through the manipulation of force”.16 This objective can be achieved in a number of ways, of which one focuses on placing this force in the hands of a central authority, while others focuses on the creation of a system of collective security, by accepting a system of mutual deterrence, by abolishing or reducing force, or through establishing restraints an limits on forces. This last method appears to reflect the principle of arms most accurately. Early theorists, defined arms control in the broadest possible sense possible in which generally all forms of military cooperation were confined . Or as Hedley Bull put it, arms control is “cooperation between antagonistic pairs of states in the military field, whether this cooperation is founded upon interests that are exclusively those of the cooperating states themselves or on interests that are more widely shared”.17 Later on, theorists tended to view the objectives of the concept of arms control threefold. For Schelling and Halperin, these objectives included reducing the likelihood of war; reducing the political and economic costs of preparing for war; and minimizing the scope and violence of war if it occurred.18 Bull envisaged three similar objectives for arms control; the contribution to international security and stop the drift to war; the release of economic resources otherwise squandered in armaments; and the preclusion of preparing for war, which is morally wrong.19 Many practitioners debated the priority of these three objectives, but the first of these objectives, the prevention of war, is generally believed to be the principal objective of arms control.20More recently however , political leaders and the media have created a more limited definition of the concept of

arms control, in which arms control is defined to a set of activities dealing with specific steps to control related weapon systems , codified in formal agreements or treaties. During the Cold War, many analysts viewed arms control as the process of bilateral arms control negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union. These bilateral negotiations were expected to result in the establishment of a formal treaty, an arrangement of inspections to ensure verifiable compliance with the provisions of the treaty, and an enforcement mechanism to coerce compliance. These are the ideal elements for arms control, but not always necessary, as arms control is a process of which involves “specific, declared steps by a state to enhance security through cooperation with others, [whether they are], unilateral, bilateral, or multilateral”.21 This description fits with the placement of the concept of arms control under the heading of cooperative security, a new concept which has gained popularity following the end of the Cold War.

B. Violation – the plan offers TCBMs but is not a binding legal agreement between US and China

C. Standards1. Limits – allowing non-legally binding arms controls allows for an infinite number of unpredictable small actions to increase confidence over space weapons, including unilateral ones

2. Ground – non-legally binding arms control skirts the link to DAs, such as relations and politics, avoids the “say no” debate and takes away the Soft Law CP

D. Topicality is a voting issue for fairness and education

1NC – Space-Based Solar Power TA. Interpretation – increase means make something pre-existing greater Buckley et al, 06 - attorney (Jeremiah, Amicus Curiae Brief, Safeco Ins. Co. of America et al v. Charles Burr et al, http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/06-84/06-84.mer.ami.mica.pdf) ****NCC’19 Novice Packet****First, the court said that the ordinary meaning of the word “increase” is “to make something greater,” which it believed should not “be limited to cases in which a company raises the rate that an individual has previously been charged.” 435 F.3d at 1091. Yet the definition offered by the Ninth Circuit compels the opposite conclusion. Because “increase” means “to make something greater,” there must necessarily have been an existing premium, to which Edo’s actual premium may be compared, to determine whether an “increase” occurred. Congress could have provided that “ad-verse action” in the insurance context means charging an amount greater than the optimal premium, but instead chose to define adverse action in terms of an “increase.” That def-initional choice must be respected, not ignored. See Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 392-93 n.10 (1979) (“[a] defin-ition which declares what a term ‘means’ . . . excludes any meaning that is not stated”). Next, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that because the Insurance Prong includes the words “existing or applied for,” Congress intended that an “increase in any charge” for insurance must “apply to all insurance transactions – from an initial policy of insurance to a renewal of a long-held policy.” 435 F.3d at 1091. This interpretation reads the words “exist-ing or applied for” in isolation. Other types of adverse action described in the Insurance Prong apply only to situations where a consumer had an existing policy of insurance, such as a “cancellation,” “reduction,” or “change” in insurance. Each of these forms of adverse action presupposes an already-existing policy, and under usual canons of statutory construction the term “increase” also should be construed to apply to increases of an already-existing policy. See Hibbs v. Winn, 542 U.S. 88, 101 (2004) (“a phrase gathers meaning from the words around it”) (citation omitted).

B. Violation – the plan creates brand new cooperation with China on space-based solar power that does not already exist

C. Standards1. Limits – there are infinite ways to increase new cooperation in the 6 areas with both Russia and China – limiting to status quo cooperation is key to predictability

2. Ground – fewer articles written on new cooperation mean worse DA links and the aff can claim advantages based on new forms on cooperation

D. Topicality is a voting issue for fairness and education

1NC – Space Situational Awareness (SSA) TA. Interpretation – increase means make something pre-existing greater Buckley et al, 06 - attorney (Jeremiah, Amicus Curiae Brief, Safeco Ins. Co. of America et al v. Charles Burr et al, http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/06-84/06-84.mer.ami.mica.pdf) ****NCC’19 Novice Packet****First, the court said that the ordinary meaning of the word “increase” is “to make something greater,” which it believed should not “be limited to cases in which a company raises the rate that an individual has previously been charged.” 435 F.3d at 1091. Yet the definition offered by the Ninth Circuit compels the opposite conclusion. Because “increase” means “to make something greater,” there must necessarily have been an existing premium, to which Edo’s actual premium may be compared, to determine whether an “increase” occurred. Congress could have provided that “ad-verse action” in the insurance context means charging an amount greater than the optimal premium, but instead chose to define adverse action in terms of an “increase.” That def-initional choice must be respected, not ignored. See Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 392-93 n.10 (1979) (“[a] defin-ition which declares what a term ‘means’ . . . excludes any meaning that is not stated”). Next, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that because the Insurance Prong includes the words “existing or applied for,” Congress intended that an “increase in any charge” for insurance must “apply to all insurance transactions – from an initial policy of insurance to a renewal of a long-held policy.” 435 F.3d at 1091. This interpretation reads the words “exist-ing or applied for” in isolation. Other types of adverse action described in the Insurance Prong apply only to situations where a consumer had an existing policy of insurance, such as a “cancellation,” “reduction,” or “change” in insurance. Each of these forms of adverse action presupposes an already-existing policy, and under usual canons of statutory construction the term “increase” also should be construed to apply to increases of an already-existing policy. See Hibbs v. Winn, 542 U.S. 88, 101 (2004) (“a phrase gathers meaning from the words around it”) (citation omitted).

B. Violation – the plan creates brand new cooperation with China on SSA that does not already exist

C. Standards1. Limits – there are infinite ways to increase new cooperation in the 6 areas with both Russia and China – limiting to status quo cooperation is key to predictability

2. Ground – fewer articles written on new cooperation mean worse DA links and the aff can claim advantages based on new forms on cooperation

D. Topicality is a voting issue for fairness and education

2NC/1NR – Definitions

Arms Control – Legally Binding Arms control are treaties to limit military capacity The Free Dictionary, 2006(“Arms Control and Disarmament”, March 19, p. https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Arms+Control+and+Disarmament //Dinger) ****NCC’19 Novice Packet****Arms Control and DisarmamentOne of the major efforts to preserve international peace and security in the twenty-first century has been to control or limit the number of weapons and the ways in which weapons can be used. Two different means to achieve this goal have been disarmament and arms control. Disarmament is the reduction of the number of weapons and troops maintained by a state. Arms control refers to treaties made between potential adversaries that reduce the likelihood and scope of war, usually imposing limitations on military capability. Although disarmament always involves the reduction of military forces or weapons, arms control does not. In fact, arms control agreements sometimes allow for the increase of weapons by one or more parties to a treaty.

Arms control is a plan, treaty or agreement to limit the number or scope of armsDictionary.com, 2019(“Arms control”, p. https://www.dictionary.com/browse/arms-control //Dinger) arms controlnoun1. any plan, treaty, or agreement to limit the number, size, or type of weapons or armed forces of the participating nations.2. the measures taken to limit the weapons systems or armed forces.

Arms Control – LimitsTCBMs are soft arms control with include a range of actions that don’t limit weapon systems AND they and can include non-military components – only hard arms control, i.e., agreements to limit weapons provide meaningful limits Bromley & Perdomo, 2005 – Research Associate and Research Assistant at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Sweden(Mark & Catalina, “CBMs in Latin America and the effect of arms acquisitions by Venezuela”, Real Instituto Elcano, Working Paper (WP) 41/2005, September 22, p. http://static.iris.net.co/semana/upload/documents/Doc-1721_2008912.pdf //Dinger) ****NCC’19 Novice Packet****Arms control consists of two main branches that differ in terms of both their scope and the devices they employ : operational or ‘soft’ arms control and structural or ‘hard’ arms control. The former aims to

provide assurances with regard to the character and purpose of military activities and defence postures; it involves such elements as partnership, mutual reassurance and transparency at the security and military levels.3 Specific measures may include: an exchange of information about military activities, capabilities and doctrine; restrictions on certain military activities and capabilities; meetings between senior defence officials; and exchange programmes for personnel and military units.4 Hard arms control measures , on the other hand, are a set of tangible arrangements intended to reduce, prohibit and restrain the acquisition, deployment and proliferation of specific types of armaments. CBMs form

part of the ‘soft’ arms control framework. While there is no commonly agreed, detailed definition of CBMs, what is common to most definitions is the aim of CBMs to reduce the risk of miscalculation or communication failure escalating into war by hindering the use of force.5 They can increase predictability, strengthen stability and enhance security, as well as open ‘channels of communication’ between adversaries, break deadlocked security relationships, improve political climates and help establish working relationships.6 In Europe, CBMs have focused on the needs and requirements of military cooperation and understanding. However, other regions, among them Latin America, have included efforts designed to tackle, along with military measures, non-military issues such as environmental and criminal threats within their concept of CBMs . This article focuses on CBMs that are designed to lessen mistrust and tension in relation to arms acquisitions and arms transfers.

Increase Increase requires pre-existenceBrown, 03 – US Federal Judge for the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON (ELENA MARK and PAUL GUSTAFSON, Plaintiffs, v. VALLEY INSURANCE COMPANY and VALLEY PROPERTY AND CASUALTY, Defendants, 7/17, lexis) ****NCC’19 Novice Packet****FCRA does not define the term "increase." The plain and ordinary meaning of the verb "to increase" is to make something greater or larger. 4 Merriam-Webster's [**22] Collegiate Dictionary 589 (10th ed. 1998). The "something" that is increased in the statute is the "charge for any insurance." The plain and common meaning of the noun "charge" is "the price demanded for something." Id. at 192. Thus, the statute plainly means an insurer takes adverse action if the insurer makes greater (i.e., larger) the price demanded for insurance.An insurer cannot "make greater" something that did not exist previously. The statutory definition of adverse action, therefore, clearly anticipates an insurer must have made an initial charge or demand for payment before the insurer can increase that charge. In other words, an insurer cannot increase the charge for insurance unless the insurer previously set and demanded payment of the premium for that insured's insurance [**23] coverage at a lower price.

Increase means to become larger or greater in quantityEncarta Online Dictionary. 2006. ("Increase." <http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861620741>.)****NCC’19 Novice Packet****in·crease [ in krss ]transitive and intransitive verb  (past and past participle in·creased, present participle in·creas·ing, 3rd person present singular in·creas·es)Definition: make or become larger or greater: to become, or make something become, larger in number, quantity, or degreenoun  (plural in·creas·es)

2NC/1NR – Theory

Limits Good Limits outweigh—large topics make the research burden unreasonable and make an impossible entry barrier into the activity—Every new aff decreases the amount of focus the neg can devote to any given aff—that decreases clash and depth which are key to the fun and skill we get from this activity—it also kills farness—increasing the number of topical affs can only benefit the affirmative—fairness comes first because debate is a game and it’s and procedural fairness is a prerequisite to it being a balanced game, debates are won by inches, not miles-- in soccer you wouldn’t let one team have even a slightly smaller goal

AT: Reasonability Competing interpretations is good: Increases education: forces us to do topic specific research to find contextual definitions of space cooperation – makes a unique form of topic education and rewards good research practices. You link more to race to the bottom arguments – competing interps forces us to defend a stable topic and compare which would be better – reasonability allows a rush to the fringes to avoid neg offense. Reasonability forces judge intervention which is much worse than a smaller topic They are not reasonable – that was explained on the counter-interpretation Reasonability still links to limits because the combination of all reasonable interpretations is way too large.

**Affirmative**

2ACs

2AC – Arms ControlCounter-interpretation – Arms control is cooperation to reduce war from space activities – includes TCBMs Brian Chow 18, adjunct physical scientist at the RAND Corporation. He was a senior physical scientist at RAND during 1989-2015. His research focuses on project priortization, portfolio optimization and program management of R&D and/or acquisition programs in diverse areas including defense, homeland security, health, justice and transportation. He has also conductded many studies about the defense and control of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery vehicles. He has authored more than 150 publications and testified before congressional committees. Before joining RAND in 1989, Chow was appointed by the President's Science Advisor, the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, and the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations as a consultant to advise them on policy matters. He holds a Ph.D. in physics from Case Western Reserve University, and a M.B.A. with distinction and Ph.D. in finance from the University of Michigan. <KEN> “Is It Time for 'Space Arms Control' ?” National Interest. December 9, 2018. DOA: 6/1/19. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/it-time-space-arms-control-38152****NCC’19 Novice Packet****In 1961, Nobel Laureate Thomas Schelling and Morton Halperin penned a treatise on arms control and

its relation to military strategy. They concluded that “arms control is essentially a means of supplementing unilateral

military strategy by some kind of collaboration with the countries that are potential enemies . The aims of arms control and the aims of a national military strategy should be substantially the same.” This classic was reprinted without change in 2014 and remains foundational today. These two most-authoritative arms control scholars defined military

strategy as all unilateral measures, which can be carried out without the necessity of the consent of any other country. Their arms control is meant to “include all the forms on military cooperation between potential enemies in the interest of reducing [1] the likelihood of war, [2] its scope and violence if it occurs, and [3] the political and economic costs of being prepared for it.” These are the three benefits of arms control. It should be

emphasized that arms control includes both multilateral legally-binding measures and voluntary measures . Examples of the former are treaties; examples of the latter are transparency and confidence-building measures (TCBMs) and guidelines for the long-term sustainability of outer space activities

sponsored by the United Nations.

We meet the counter-interpretation – the plan gives TCBMs to China to reduce a military space conflict

Counter StandardsA. Precision – our definition is specific to space arms control, not arms control in general B. Ground – non-binding agreements with Russia & China can bolster perception links – a treaty isn’t needed C. Limits – The neg overlimits – not enough literature for space weapons treaties with Russia and China means 1 or 2 arms control affs, limiting aff flexibility

Functional limits check – “say no” arguments and the unilateral counterplan limit the number of soft law arms controls affs

Other words in the resolution check – “space cooperation” and “space weapons” put meaningful limits on the arms control area

Don’t vote on potential abuse – there is no abuse in the debate so don’t punish the aff

Reasonability – good is good enough –judge intervention is inevitable. Competing interpretations is bad- Creates a race to the bottom and causes substance crowd out.

2AC – Space-Based Solar PowerWe meet – the aff increases the overall amount of space cooperation with China

Counter-interpretation -- Increase means make greater – even from zeroReinhardt, 05 – U.S. Judge for the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT (Stephen, JASON RAY REYNOLDS; MATTHEW RAUSCH, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC.; HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees., lexis) ****NCC’19 Novice Packet****Specifically, we must decide whether charging a higher price for initial insurance than the insured would otherwise have been charged because of information in a consumer credit report constitutes an "increase in any charge" within the meaning of FCRA. First, we examine the definitions of "increase" and "charge." Hartford Fire contends that, limited to their ordinary definitions, these words apply only when a consumer has previously been charged for insurance and that charge has thereafter been increased by the insurer. The phrase, "has previously been charged," as used by Hartford, refers not only to a rate that the consumer has previously paid for insurance but also to a rate that the consumer has previously been quoted, even if that rate was increased [**23] before the consumer made any payment. Reynolds disagrees, asserting that, under [*1091] the ordinary definition of the term, an increase in a charge also occurs whenever an insurer charges a higher rate than it would otherwise have charged because of any factor--such as adverse credit information, age, or driving record 8 --regardless of whether the customer was previously charged some other rate. According to Reynolds, he was charged an increased rate because of his credit rating when he was compelled to pay a rate higher than the premium rate because he failed to obtain a high insurance score. Thus, he argues, the definitions of "increase" and "charge" encompass the insurance companies' practice. Reynolds is correct. “Increase" means to make something greater. See, e.g., OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY (2d ed. 1989) ("The action, process, or fact of becoming or making greater; augmentation, growth, enlargement, extension."); WEBSTER'S NEW WORLD DICTIONARY OF AMERICAN ENGLISH (3d college ed. 1988) (defining "increase" as "growth, enlargement, etc[.]"). "Charge" means the price demanded for goods or services. See, e.g., OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY (2d ed. 1989) ("The price required or demanded for service rendered, or (less usually) for goods supplied."); WEBSTER'S NEW WORLD DICTIONARY OF AMERICAN ENGLISH (3d college ed. 1988) ("The cost or price of an article, service, etc."). Nothing in the definition of these words implies that the term "increase in any charge for" should be limited to cases in which a company raises the rate that an individual has previously been charged.

We meet the counter-interpretation – the plan produces a greater amount of cooperation with China over space-based solar power

A. Precision – increasing cooperation from zero is still more than before B. Ground – if cooperation exists in the status quo then all disads would be non-unique – new cooperation provides uniquenessC. Limits – the neg overlimits – the Wolf Amendment means there will be only 1 or 2 China affs on the whole topic, hurting aff flexibility

“Establish” is already in the resolution – obviously “increase” means something distinct or “establish” would be in twice

Don’t vote on potential abuse – there is no abuse in the debate so don’t punish the aff

Reasonability – good is good enough –judge intervention is inevitable. Competing interpretations is bad- Creates a race to the bottom and causes substance crowd out.

2AC – Space Situational Awareness (SSA)We meet – the aff increases the overall amount of space cooperation with China

Counter-interpretation -- Increase means make greater – even from zeroReinhardt, 05 – U.S. Judge for the UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT (Stephen, JASON RAY REYNOLDS; MATTHEW RAUSCH, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC.; HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees., lexis) ****NCC’19 Novice Packet****Specifically, we must decide whether charging a higher price for initial insurance than the insured would otherwise have been charged because of information in a consumer credit report constitutes an "increase in any charge" within the meaning of FCRA. First, we examine the definitions of "increase" and "charge." Hartford Fire contends that, limited to their ordinary definitions, these words apply only when a consumer has previously been charged for insurance and that charge has thereafter been increased by the insurer. The phrase, "has previously been charged," as used by Hartford, refers not only to a rate that the consumer has previously paid for insurance but also to a rate that the consumer has previously been quoted, even if that rate was increased [**23] before the consumer made any payment. Reynolds disagrees, asserting that, under [*1091] the ordinary definition of the term, an increase in a charge also occurs whenever an insurer charges a higher rate than it would otherwise have charged because of any factor--such as adverse credit information, age, or driving record 8 --regardless of whether the customer was previously charged some other rate. According to Reynolds, he was charged an increased rate because of his credit rating when he was compelled to pay a rate higher than the premium rate because he failed to obtain a high insurance score. Thus, he argues, the definitions of "increase" and "charge" encompass the insurance companies' practice. Reynolds is correct. “Increase" means to make something greater. See, e.g., OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY (2d ed. 1989) ("The action, process, or fact of becoming or making greater; augmentation, growth, enlargement, extension."); WEBSTER'S NEW WORLD DICTIONARY OF AMERICAN ENGLISH (3d college ed. 1988) (defining "increase" as "growth, enlargement, etc[.]"). "Charge" means the price demanded for goods or services. See, e.g., OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY (2d ed. 1989) ("The price required or demanded for service rendered, or (less usually) for goods supplied."); WEBSTER'S NEW WORLD DICTIONARY OF AMERICAN ENGLISH (3d college ed. 1988) ("The cost or price of an article, service, etc."). Nothing in the definition of these words implies that the term "increase in any charge for" should be limited to cases in which a company raises the rate that an individual has previously been charged.

We meet the counter-interpretation – the plan produces a greater amount of cooperation with China over space-situational awareness

A. Precision – increasing cooperation from zero is still more than beforeB. Ground – if cooperation exists in the status quo then all of the disads would be non-unique – new cooperation provides uniquenessC. Limits – the neg overlimits – the Wolf Amendment means there will be only 1 or 2 China affs on the whole topic, hurting aff flexibility

“Establish” is already in the resolution – obviously “increase” means something distinct or “establish” would be in there twice

Don’t vote on potential abuse – there is no abuse in the debate so don’t punish the aff

Reasonability – good is good enough –judge intervention is inevitable. Competing interpretations is bad- Creates a race to the bottom and causes substance crowd out.

1AR

1AR – Arms Control DefinitionsArms control is regulating military capacity or potential – includes TCBMsThom, 2006 – Strategy & Integration at Department of the Navy(Maxie C., “Information Warfare Arms Control: Risks and Costs”, INSS Occasional Paper 63, March 2006, USAF Institute for National Security Studies, p. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a460393.pdf //Dinger) ****NCC’19 Novice Packet****Although there is not a universally accepted definition of arms control, over the past two decades different types of international agreements have been developed and are often addressed under the rubric of “arms control,” to include nonproliferation, disarmament, confidence-building measures , and laws of war .69 Therefore, for this

paper, the general concept of arms control is defined as an “agreement among states to regulate some aspect of their military capability or potential.” 70 These different varieties are represented in Table 2 along with their potential to serve as an information warfare arms control regime. There is a general agreement that arms control played a major part in addressing and successfully managing the proliferation and employment of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction during the Cold War. Moreover, arms control was also a great success in addressing the threats from conventional arms through such regimes as the Treaty of Conventional Forces in Europe, the Stockholm Vienna Confidence and Security Building regime and the Open Skies Treaty. However, there is no general agreement on the effectiveness of arms control in the post-Cold War era, due in part to the paucity of arms control agreements since the end of the Cold War.

Arms control is any cooperation between governments to reduce the possibility of war and/or armaments – can be non-binding, such as transparency Hautecouverture, 2019 – Senior Research Fellow, Fondation pour la recherche stratégique (Benjamin, “The end of arms control ?”, edited by Benjamin Hautecoverture, Fondation pour la recherche stratégique, June 20, p. https://www.frstrategie.org/publications/notes/the-end-of-arms-control-10-2019 //Dinger) ****NCC’19 Novice Packet****In 1962, Raymond Aron proposed a broad definition of arms control for the French public that remains useful and practical to this day. In his view, it included all mechanisms, initiatives, actions, behaviours, concerted or uncoordinated, unilateral, bilateral or multilateral, political or legal, legally binding or non- binding, designed to limit the volume of violence in international affairs rather than the actual use of violence. Arms control under international law lies between the disarmament process, which is intended to be part of legally binding and universal processes, and the various reactive initiatives to combat the proliferation of weapons. These three approaches correspond to three successive periods. The first is schematically that of the League of Nations and the meeting of the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva in 1932. The second one accompanies the doctrinalization of nuclear deterrence during the Cold War. The third is the post-Cold War era and the emergence of what were called "new threats" to security almost twenty years ago. In this

chronology, the arms control lived its golden age between 1961 and July 1991. To say that arms control is a Cold War discipline is not only to put it in a chronology. First of all, arms control must be based on a tripod: bipolar world order, structuring conflict between the two poles, bilateral acceptance of the notion of strategic parity. Arms control then reminds us that generically, the subject seeks to frame and stabilize nuclear deterrence in a pragmatic way. Arms control is therefore an integral part of nuclear deterrence. It has become a tool in the diplomat-strategist toolbox. Arms control is no longer a generic collective security discipline but an intergovernmental security policy. The corollary of this new reality makes it possible to further circumscribe the definition of arms control, which becomes any form of cooperation between adversaries aimed at reducing the risks of war and nuclear escalation and/or limiting competition in the field of armaments. Arms control led the United States and the Soviet Union to co-manage deterrence. It was a bilateral technique. Another generic characteristic: arms control must be consensual because it translates into reciprocal commitments that strengthen mutual trust. It is therefore a paradoxical form of partnership. If we go even further into the implications of the theoretical core, arms control is not so much about eliminating a weapon system as it is about shaping a predictable nuclear relationship through transparency mechanisms with a dual virtue: avoiding strategic planning based on the worst-case scenario, avoiding miscalculations and perceptual errors more generally. For the USSR and the United States, legally binding constraints on their arsenals gradually shifted towards two main objectives: approximate parity and force survivability. Naturally, with the end of the Cold War, the very detailed numerical parity objective lost its prominence in the American debate, as illustrated by the American withdrawal from the ABM Treaty and the conclusion of the SORT Treaty in spring 2002.

1AR – Increase Definitions One can increase from zeroWORDS AND PHRASES, 07 (CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENTARY PAMPHLET, 2007 Vol. 20A, 07, 76. Increase: Salary change of from zero to $12,000 and $1,200 annually for mayor and councilmen respectively was an “increase” in salary and not merely the fixing of salary. King v. Herron, 243 S.E.2d36, 241 Ga. 5. ****NCC’19 Novice Packet****