Debate regarding the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, the international agreement among states to desist from developing nuclear weapons, is at a all-time high today, with disputes regarding the nuclear programs in North Korea and Iran at the forefront of international relations. The motivations of states to either sign or decline the NPT as well as whether or not they abide by it can be viewed through the lens of each of three major perspectives in political theory: neorealism, neoliberal institutionalism, and constructivism. This paper will examine the theoretical grounds of each of these political philosophies as well as how each would evaluate the Non-Proliferation Treaty and its effects.

             The tradition of neorealism has a deep-rooted historical basis in the political philosophy of realism, the concept of nature described by Thomas Hobbes as that of constant war between men in order to survive. Niccolo Machiavelli contributed to this concept by justifying all actions taken to preserve the state as right, regardless of their morality. Realist thinkers throughout the years have posited that the survival of the state is the primary aim of politics, and individual states exist in a constant state of near-war, only tempered by their knowledge that war itself is usually more detrimental than compromises to avoid it. Neorealism adopted these concepts about the nature of man and the primacy of the state in international actions, and has evolved into a modern philosophy regarding the relations between states based on each state's primary aim of survival in the international arena. Neorealists, in contrast to realists, recognize that "the causal link between interacting units and international outcomes.that causes run not in one direction" (Waltz 1999, 34). Neorealists see the interaction between states as something that is also informed by the lower levels of the international structure, not just by top-down dictating regarding the actions of individual states.