We argue that the framework of norms has generated a progressive research agenda in the field of global nuclear politics, providing important insights that traditional realist and materialist analyses ignore or dismiss. These insights are not on the margins of nuclear politics; rather, they answer central questions about nuclear non-use, possession, and the nonproliferation regime at large. These findings are not a fluke; instead, they stem from the powerful analytical framework of norms, which provides complexes of linked propositions about actor expectations and behavior in global nuclear politics. This article examines three of those propositions: the importance of the logic of appropriateness, the role of norm contestation, and the changes brought about by norm entrepreneurs. Finally, we identify other norms-related ideas that can further illuminate the dire policy crises facing global nuclear governance, as well as specific areas of nuclear politics that would benefit from norms-related scrutiny.Contemporary global nuclear politics face serious strains and major challenges. At the heart of those challenges are contesting normative claims about the legitimate exercise of state power, the (un)importance of treaty obligations, and even what "security" and "stability" mean. Without rejecting the utility of some realist, materialist, or quantitative analyses in untangling issues related to nuclear politics, we assert-in defiance of traditional wisdom-that ideas about appropriate conduct as well as justice and fairness are central to those challenges.In this introductory article to the special issue, we argue that the use of norms in understanding global nuclear governance provides a progressive, productive, and fast-growing research agenda to understand contemporary global nuclear politics, yielding an "overarching analytical framework that