Guest  

 
Search: 
Search By: SubjectAbstractAuthorTitleFull-Text

 

Showing 1 through 5 of 148 records.
Pages: Previous - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 30 - Next  Jump:
2005 - American Political Science Association Pages: 34 pages || Words: 9993 words || 
Info
1. Mitchell, Sara. and Harrison, Richard Ewan. "Might Makes Right or Right Makes Might? Two Systemic Democratic Peace Tales" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Marriott Wardman Park, Omni Shoreham, Washington Hilton, Washington, DC, Sep 01, 2005 <Not Available>. 2020-02-22 <http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p40846_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: In a path-breaking article, Huntley (1996) reinterpreted Kant’s pacific union as a systemic phenomenon. Huntley’s argument spawned a new wave of inquiry into the evolutionary expansion of the democratic peace, with subsequent empirical studies finding a strong positive relationship between global democracy and systemic peace (e.g. Crescenzi and Enterline 1999; Gleditsch and Hegre 1997; Kadera, Crescenzi, and Shannon 2003; Mitchell, Gates, and Hegre 1999). Yet, there are many possible theoretical explanations of this aggregate relationship. In this paper, we compare two broad theoretical tales of the systemic democratic peace. The first approach, “might makes right”, emphasizes the importance of authority for creating liberal peace, especially the role played by a democratic hegemon and liberal major powers. The second approach, “right makes might”, traces the evolution of the systemic democratic peace to shifts in morality and liberal norms, drawing from work by Rawls (1999) and Wendt (1999). We compare and contrast these two broad theoretical tales, argue that both “might” and “right” are important, and conclude with some thoughts for future development of systemic democratic peace theory.

2004 - American Political Science Association Pages: 29 pages || Words: 10297 words || 
Info
2. Jakobsen, Jo. "Roaring Mice and a Frightened Elephant: Why a Missile Defense Might Save America from the Evils of Rogue States" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Hilton Chicago and the Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, IL, Sep 02, 2004 <Not Available>. 2020-02-22 <http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p60103_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: In spite of boisterous protests by friends and foes alike, the United States looks set to deploy a national missile defense (NMD). This article shows how such a defense can function as a necessary deterrent against rogue states’ nuclear, chemical, and biological ambitions. Drawing on previous work by Zagare (1992) and Kraig (1999), a three-stage game-theoretic framework is developed. It is argued that the Prisoners’ Dilemma and the Chicken game are inadequate for describing asymmetric theoretical deterrence situations in the 21st century. New games are needed for this new era, where new players are presumed to hold new preferences. Two important arguments concerning the players’ preferences are presented. First, the article allows for the possibility that the weaker party to a potential WMD conflict has so-called ‘madman preferences’, meaning that it prefers a WMD battle to a protracted conventional conflict. Second, it is assumed that the stronger party is normatively constrained by the tradition of non-use of nuclear weapons and an equivocal no-first-use pledge. When these assumptions are incorporated into the general model, the militarily weaker party gets the upper hand in 18 of the 24 resulting games. Moreover, under such preference restrictions, deterrence is stable and status quo revision is avoided in only two of the games. For deterrence to work against a WMD-armed rogue nation, the United States – lacking an adequate missile defense system – needs threat credibility and capability at both the first and the second stage. This two-stage credibility and capability, it is argued, should not be assumed a priori. However, by removing the second (WMD) stage of potential regional conflicts, a national missile defense might make the ‘madman card’ obsolete and nuclear or WMD blackmail much more difficult.

2006 - American Political Science Association Pages: 37 pages || Words: 12464 words || 
Info
3. Jervis, Robert. "The Failure to See that the Shah Might Fall: The Jervis Post-Mortem for the CIA in Retrospect" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Marriott, Loews Philadelphia, and the Pennsylvania Convention Center, Philadelphia, PA, Aug 31, 2006 <Not Available>. 2020-02-22 <http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p151464_index.html>
Publication Type: Proceeding
Abstract: This paper tells the stroy of how I came to write the post-mortem for CIA on why it was slow to see that the Shah of Iran might fall. It summarizes some of the report's findings and discusses general difficulties with intelligence.

2005 - International Studies Association Pages: 27 pages || Words: 13242 words || 
Info
4. Ahrnens, Anette. "Might Changing Right? The Role of the United States in International Legal Change" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Hilton Hawaiian Village, Honolulu, Hawaii, Mar 05, 2005 <Not Available>. 2020-02-22 <http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p70298_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Paper proposal for the International Law section, ISA Honolulu, 1-5 March 2005 The eternal struggle between might and right is played out in different arenas, but it is especially visible in the nexus between international law and international politics. The recent controversy over the war in Iraq and the alleged transatlantic rift concern more than just which rules and principles will prevail. It is to a large extent a question about whose rules and principles will prevail. To put it differently, who has the power to change or preserve international legal rules? The aim of this paper is to examine the role of the current superpower in the process of change in customary international law. Unlike treaties, there is no agreement on when and how customary international law changes, as it consists of uniform (but not universal) state practice and opinio juris. This paper will argue that in addition to the extent of previous practice and the importance of the moral principles involved, a third factor is relevant in determining how much it takes to achieve the attempted change, namely, who initiates or blocks it. The case used to illustrate the theoretical discussions will be the attempt by a coalition of civic organizations - through the Non-Aligned Movement - to get the International Court of Justice to declare the threat and use of nuclear weapons illegal according to international law. Although the Court delivered its famous - and highly ambiguous - advisory opinion in 1996, it is an issue which has regained currency and importance lately as the threat of weapons of mass-destruction is discussed in conjunction with various rogue regimes and non-state actors. In the examination of the case, traditional legal theory will be complemented with IR literature which contributes a much needed power perspective. The paper aims at furthering the understanding of international legal or normative change, which is often sorely overlooked in mainstream IR. Author Ph. D. Cand. Anette Ahrnens Department of Political Science Lund University Box 52 SE-221 00 Lund SWEDEN Anette.Ahrnens@svet.lu.se Phone +46 46 222 89 32

2006 - International Studies Association Words: 214 words || 
Info
5. Bale, Jeffrey. "Where the Extremes (Might) Touch: The Potential for Collaboration between Islamist Terrorists and Western Right- or Left-Wing Extremists" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Town & Country Resort and Convention Center, San Diego, California, USA, Mar 22, 2006 <Not Available>. 2020-02-22 <http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p97879_index.html>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: It is generally assumed that different types of violent extremists and terrorists operate within discrete ideological and cultural milieus that are relatively insular, if not entirely distinct from one another. This simplistic assumption ignores a far more complex and fluid reality, however, since elements from different extremist milieus have not infrequently interacted and lent one another assistance in the past, and there are indications that new patterns of ideological cross-fertilization and collaboration are presently emerging among terrorist groups. The purpose of this paper is to consider whether, in spite of their marked ideological differences, a shared hatred of the ?New World Order? purportedly dominated by the United States might cause transnational Islamist terrorist networks such as al-Qā`ida to collude on an operational level with certain radical right- and left-wing groups in the West. Among the issues to be addressed will be the indicators of extremist collaboration, the doctrinal and pragmatic factors that may underlie Islamist collaboration with other terrorist groups, illustrative examples of prior collaboration between elements from different extremist milieus, the current links that have been established between Islamists and both far right and far left radicals, the potential for increased collaboration between these milieus in the future, and the strategic and tactical implications of such collaboration for mass casualty and WMD terrorism.

Pages: Previous - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 30 - Next  Jump:

©2020 All Academic, Inc.   |   All Academic Privacy Policy