Is deterrence still a useful concept in the post-Cold War world?
Is deterrence still a useful concept in the post-Cold War world? ABSTRACT The literature discussing the role of nuclear weapons and nuclear policy in international relations has been historically shaped by the related concepts of deterrence and mutual assurance. However, whilst analysis of the 'First Nuclear Age' of the Cold War era clearly demonstrates a link between deterrence and the development of nuclear weapons, the gradual proliferation of nuclear weapons programmes in the post-Cold War era in states such as Israel, India, North Korea and Pakistan clearly points to a shifting justificatory rationale for nuclear weapons. This essay develops the argument that deterrence theory no longer provides a comprehensive explanation of the role of nuclear weapons in international relations. Instead, it is now clear that further research is needed to examine the relationship between the various motivational factors underpinning nuclear weapons programmes and changing international norms in order to truly evaluate the stabilising or potentially destabilising impact of nuclear weapons in international relations. . INTRODUCTION In the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, international policymakers became overwhelmingly preoccupied with the potential ramifications of nuclear warfare within the world political order. After the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki,
Why do Arab Islamic countries hate the United States?
Running head: WHY DO ARAB ISLAMIC COUNTRIES HATE WHY DO ARAB ISLAMIC COUNTRIES HATE THE UNITED STATES? Chris Eggleton Marshall University Abstract Conflict in the Middle East has reigned since biblical times. An escalation in violence has been seen since the 1900's . With the emergence of the United States as a competing and lone super power, alterations in the status quo can be traced directly and indirect to United States influence. Exploration of three major areas will be explored. WHY DO ARAB ISLAMIC COUNTRIES HATE THE UNITED STATES? Why do Arab Islamic countries hate us? That is a question that has been asked many times since September 11th, 2001. The fact is that this did not happen over night. This problem has been escalating for hundreds of years depending on the point of view. Some scholars say the hated began with the Christian Crusades in the year 1095. Other sources point to the ongoing conflict between the Arabs and Israelis, in which the United States backs Israel. These are just some of the ever growing reasons that Arab Islamic countries hate the United States. There are three main points of focus when one researches this topic. First and foremost is foreign policy. This would include the war for Palestine as well as the war on terrorism that the United States now wages. Secondly, religion plays the next major role in the hatred for the
Governance and security in Northeast Asia. The purpose of this paper is to reveal new phenomena in security issue pertaining to the region of Northeast Asia, which relates to integration and fragmentation in Rosenaus terms. Integration will be
Global Governance and International Organizations Rhee Sungchul Research Term Paper 2004470016 GSIS, Korea Univ. Governance and Security in Northeast Asia I. Introduction: Global Governance and Regional Security Global governance concept is arguably well established in the field of global politics and international organizations. Although still vague in definition, global governance was 'officially' conceptualized by the United Nations: the sum of the many ways individuals and institutions, public and private, manage their common affairs. It is "a continuing process through which conflicting or diverse interests may be accommodated and co-operative action may be taken." Such definition is not much different from what was observed by James N. Rosenau: integration and fragmentation.1 Domestically, the robust government system of long history is losing ground to the governance concept of recent vintage. Government is not the only entity that can manage and solve important domestic problems. Regarding corporate governance, managers came under tight 'surveillance' by activist shareholders in many nations. South Korea also experienced diffusion of corporate authority after it went through bottom-up restructuring after the 1997-98 financial crisis that had swept East Asia. In fact, in such issue areas as environment, human rights and humanitarian
To what extent do you agree that clash of civilizations leads to destruction?
Essay Question: To what extent do you agree that clash of civilizations leads to destruction? 20071999 Outline I Introduction Thesis statement: Some people strongly believe that clash of civilizations leads humanity to destruction; however, lot of people think that clash of civilizations can bring the advantages to opposing sides. II Body A. Firstly, clash of civilizations divides people from different cultures . Muslims and Christians 2. Ideological clash B. Secondly, clash of civilizations stimulates terrorist activities in a both sides . Radical Islam terrorism 2. State terror C. However, other people think that "war on terror" is a very profitable campaign for "crusaders" 1. Military spending 2. Mass-media III Conclusion In conclusion, there are many negative aspects created by clash of civilizations, but it also can gives good opportunities for the both sides. The Clash of Civilization Clash of the civilization is a theory proposed by Huntington (1993) that cultural and religious identity of people will major source of conflict in post-Cold War world. According to Huntington (1993) during the history wars were between monarchs, their armies they want to expand their lands and finally they created nation states. Starting with French Revolution where monarchy headed by Louis XVI
What is meant by good governance, why has this concept become so popular among international financial institutions and policymakers and is it a force for democratic political change in Asia?
What is meant by 'good governance', why has this concept become so popular among international financial institutions and policymakers and is it a force for democratic political change in Asia? This essay will critically analyse available evidence to define what is meant by 'good governance'. Using this established definition and by applying additional critical analysis, this essay will examine why the concept has become popular among international financial institutions and policymakers. Understanding why the concept has become popular will allow further analysis of the concept and provide an evidentiary basis for the determination that good governance can both act as a driver for democratic political change in Asia, and provide the means by which an established government may retard the advance of a liberal style democracy by using the tenets good governance. The basis of evidence will be formed by case studies that examine how good governance has been implemented in Asian governments; an examination of Malaysia will show how opposition movement have been able to use the lack of good governance in Malaysian policy to highlight the deficiencies in the ruling elite. Looking at Singapore will demonstrate how the same narrative on good governance, can be used by a ruling elite to demonstrate why their current system is sufficient and to therefore retard any progress toward real
The Positive and Negative Impact of The Iraq War On U.S Foreign Policy
Mohammed Ja'afaru The Positive and Negative Impact of The Iraq War On U.S Foreign Policy Some background information on Iraq. Iraq and other Persian Gulf countries were created following World War I as protectorates of Great Britain. They were carved out of Mesopotamia, which was formerly part of the Turkish Empire. Iraq includes three major groups the Sunni Muslims who are in the center surrounding the capital of Baghdad, the Kurds who are in the north, and the Shi'a Muslims who are in the south. About 15% of the population is Kurdish, 80% Arab, and 60% are Shi'ite Muslims like their neighbors in Iran, but they are Arabs not Persians. But none of these groups were given any national rights in the League of nation settlement after the war. However, national and tribal disputes, as well as friction with Western powers trying to control Iraqi oil, have played a great part in Iraq history. British and US interests were fixed on Iraq after the discoveries of petroleum there. The United State succeeded in pressuring Great Britain to share petroleum rights in Iraq. In 1931, Iraq became independent with a pro-British regime under King Feisal and Nuri-as-Said. A pro-Axis coup in 1941 was reversed by British intervention. But after World War II, the US was worried about Soviet influences, and so tried to make Iraq the anchor of a NATO like pro Western alliance, the Baghdad pact.
Perceptions of the UN in the U.S. Press During the Iraq War
Perceptions of the UN in the U.S. Press During the Iraq War On December 1, 2003, a lead editorial in the New York Times gave its own summary of the role the UN had played during the recent, and ongoing, war in Iraq: The United Nations has had a terrible year in Iraq. First it was marginalized by the misconceived unilateralism of the Bush White House. Then it was all but driven out of the country by the deliberate terrorist targeting of relief agencies. Yet with Washington now eager to get out of the occupation business and move more quickly toward restoring Iraq's sovereignty, it may become easier to revitalize the U.N.'s role. By contrast to this summary, one is reminded of the frequent comment by UN Secretaries General that the letters "SG" stand not only for Secretary General, but also for Scapegoat. The UN's actual record and role in Iraq during the past year have been somewhere between "terrible" and that of a scapegoat, and it is worth examining how the UN was perceived by the U.S. press during that critical period, since U.S. support for the UN is both influenced by, and reflected in, the U.S. press. And since the U.S. is likely to want to use the UN at some point in the future, a realistic analysis of the UN's capabilities and performance will better allow it to play a constructive role in international affairs. Besides, the UN cannot be effective without U.S.
How substantial has US-European counter-terrorism cooperation been since 1990?
How substantial has US-European counter-terrorism cooperation been since 1990? There has been both continuity and change in US-European counter-terrorism cooperation from 1990 to the present day. Several factors, including differing values, historical experiences, threat perceptions and military capabilities have led to different "strategic cultures" that have limited the cooperation that is possible between the two. However, the events of 9/11 led to a new impetus and urgency for cooperation between Europe and America, in order to jointly tackle what was now seen as a major threat to western civilisation. Despite progress with cooperation in key areas in internal security, obstacles remain, and external security cooperation has barely improved at all, as the case of Iraq in 2003 showed. This essay will explore the underlying history and issues that have served as impediments to transatlantic cooperation on terrorism, and then go on to look separately at progress made in internal (that is domestic security, usually achieved within a legal institutional framework) and external (international security often achieved by military means) security cooperation since 1990. The biggest focus of the essay will be on the post-9/11 period, as this has seen far more cooperation than the 1990-2001 period. It is certainly the case the America and Europe, as much as the latter can be seen
SOVEREIGNTY IS A LEGAL FICTION. DISCUSS.
SOVEREIGNTY IS A LEGAL FICTION. DISCUSS. ABSTRACT: As a basic principle of the international order for centuries, concepts of state sovereignty are intrinsic to understanding the world system. Despite the entrenchment of this basic principle in the international system of governance, geopolitics has recently posed significant challenges to the concept of sovereignty and its evolution over time. While some feel that state sovereignty is a scared right which can never be trampled upon, others feel that sovereignty can be abrogated in a variety of instances and persuasively put forth the argument that sovereignty today is a legal fiction. Addressing the concept of sovereignty through an analysis of its recent challengers, namely the globalization phenomenon and American unilateralism, the following essay asks whether or not state sovereignty remains a viable concept in the twenty-first century. INTRODUCTION. State sovereignty is a basic principle of the current international order and notions of sovereignty are intrinsic to the global system of international affairs. Despite the fact that ideas about state sovereignty shape the international system and are basic premises of the functions of global governance, this important concept is under threat from a variety of forces. Seeking to address the concept of state sovereignty in the twenty-first century, this essay will
Analysing security - the US position on its security after the Cold War - some major threats to its security.
As a serious outside observer, I see the following as the dominant force determining US foreign policy today: Security Analysing security - the US position on its security after the Cold War - some major threats to its security. Introduction The ambiguity of security In a world of continuous armed conflicts, whenever and wherever they break out, they incite tension and fear. These features explain why states are preoccupied with threats to their security and why preparing for defence is nearly a universal preoccupation. Because the anarchical international system requires that states rely on themselves for protection, national security is of imperial priority. As Hans J. Morgenthau puts it: "...in a world where a number of sovereign nations compete with and oppose each other for power, the foreign policies of all nations must necessarily refer to their survival as their minimum requirements. Thus all nations do what they cannot help but do: protect their physical, political, and cultural identity against encroachments by other nations..."1 The security of a country is however, a very debatable subject. The main reasoning for this debate comes as a result of the complexity that revolves around the subject of 'security'. It is even difficult on paper to attempt any definition to what security is since, despite that most of the countries of today's world are inclined to