This book examines the ethical and intellectual issues and dilemmas associated with attempts to establish humanitarian limits on weaponry. It considers how governments, non-governmental organizations, political commentators and others have responded to the predicaments associated with imposing classifications about the relative acceptability of force. Existing texts about arms control focus on documenting prohibitions, assessing the reasons for their agreement, and appraising their prospects. While this volume examines such topics, its main preoccupation is with asking the more fundamental question of what is involved in attempts to devise and impose classifications that can serve as the basis for assessing the relative acceptability of the use of force. In taking this step back from most analyses it reinterprets many of the conventional approaches to studying arms control. It develops these issues through combining multi-disciplinary theoretical analysis with varied cases of prohibitions on "conventional"and " unconventional" weapons (e.g., biological weapons, landmines, nuclear weapons) through customary and statutory law, multilateral treaties, UN resolutions, and national legislation.

The book will appeal to students of security studies, military technology, peace studies, international relations and discourse theory.