Although I count myself to be on the more sceptical side of the spectrum, I would not go as far as Onderco. I believe that any form of disarmament on a treaty-based level amongst greater number of states is good, because it gives platform for future talks and new treaties. Starting from scratch is always harder than building upon something already existing and proven. I understand Onderco’s point about the possibility of increased risk of so-called cheaters in the future, I partially agree with it as well, but here I think the question is more philosophical than practical, which would take up too much time to disentangle.
I agree with Jiří’s take that Tannenwald in my view focuses too much on a system that works mostly in a democratic and liberal system. This would mean that the other countries would need to join this system or it just needs to be accommodated to them, I view it as a form of Kant’s idea of democratic/ideological peace, where all likeminded states wouldn’t be a threat to one another.
As for Kristyna’s reflection, I think she raises an excellent point. NGOs have been vital in pushing for disarmament, however, I still believe and NGOs are being heavily countered by intrastate pressure groups that are doing their best to fight against disarmament. With each new crisis arising across the world, be it Russo-Ukrainian war, rising tensions in Asia due to China, or many more, these groups can use such developments to gain traction again. So although they are obviously not NGOs themselves per se, I think this ongoing ‘battle’ between NGOs and their shadow counterparts is such as important as the discussion on the interstate level.