| Argentine and Brazilian behaviors contradict central expectations of leading theories of nuclear proliferation and security regimes. These states sought the option to develop nuclear weapons despite enjoying a relatively benign external security environment; rejected the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty at harm to their security, economic, and political interests; and devoted scarce financial and diplomatic resources to establish an unnecessary and inefficient bilateral nuclear regime. Neorealist and neoliberal theories misconstrue these behaviors. Pluralist theories aptly focus on domestic politics, but fail to explain how sub-national actors identify and promote their interests.; This dissertation develops a constructivist approach to empirical research, designed generally to analyze how shared ideas shape political behavior, and specifically how political actors build proliferation coalitions and attribute meaning to atomic energy. This study proposes framing analysis to explain how shared conceptual schema are created and transformed through public discourse and political struggle. In framing, actors draw upon competing norms, ideas, and information about their environment, first to identify their interests regarding policy alternatives, and then to advance their interests by mobilizing coalitions and justifying their actions. Because framing entails commitment and organizational and rhetorical institutionalization, persuasive frames tend to endure. Framing thus enables action in the present, but constrains appropriate behavior in the future. By incorporating frames in empirical analysis, researchers can better understand and anticipate actors' behavior.; Application to the Brazilian-Argentine experience reveals how domestic legitimacy can outweigh international interests in determining state participation in international regimes, and why the intrinsic ambiguity of nuclear technological development may be more important than external security threats in shaping the domestic politics of proliferation. It also demonstrates that even when states defy the international community, global norms can nevertheless impose serious constraints on their behavior.; This study employs historical process tracing, cross-national comparison, textual analysis, and counterfactual reasoning to analyze data collected through extensive field research, including two hundred interviews with military and civilian officials and other participants conducted in Washington, DC, Brazil, and Argentina. |
