Search

Begin New Search Political Geography Global Focus

2391. The Invention of International Relations Theory: Realism, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the 1954 Conference on Theory

Author:
Nicolas Guilhot
Publication Date:
01-2011
Content Type:
Book
Institution:
Columbia University Press
Abstract:
The 1954 conference on theory, sponsored by the Rockefeller Foundation, featured a who’s who of scholars and practitioners debating the foundations of international relations theory. Assembling his own team of experts, all of whom have struggled with this legacy, Nicolas Guilhot revisits a seminal event and its odd rejection of scientific rationalism. Far from being a spontaneous development, these essays argue, the emergence of a “realist” approach to international politics, later codified at the conference, was deliberately triggered by the Rockefeller Foundation. The organization was an early advocate of scholars who opposed the idea of a “science” of politics, pursuing, for the sake of disciplinary autonomy, a vision of politics as a prerational and existential dimension that could not be “solved” by scientific means. As a result, this nascent theory was more a rejection of behavioral social science than the birth of one of its specialized branches. The archived conversations reproduced here, along with unpublished papers by Hans Morgenthau, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Paul Nitze, speak to this defensive stance. International relations theory is critically linked to the context of postwar liberalism, and the contributors explore how these origins have played out in political thought and American foreign policy.
Topic:
International Relations, Political Theory, and History
Political Geography:
Global Focus
Publication Identifier:
9780231526449
Publication Identifier Type:
ISBN

2392. Governance Without a State?: Policies and Politics in Areas of Limited Statehood

Author:
Thomas Risse
Publication Date:
10-2011
Content Type:
Book
Institution:
Columbia University Press
Abstract:
Governance discourse centers on an “ideal type” of modern statehood that exhibits full internal and external sovereignty and a legitimate monopoly on the use of force. Yet modern statehood is an anomaly, both historically and within the contemporary international system, while the condition of “limited statehood,” wherein countries lack the capacity to implement central decisions and monopolize force, is the norm. Limited statehood, argue the authors in this provocative collection, is in fact a fundamental form of governance, immune to the forces of economic and political modernization. Challenging common assumptions about sovereign states and the evolution of modern statehood, particularly the dominant paradigms supported by international relations theorists, development agencies, and international organizations, this volume explores strategies for effective and legitimate governance within a framework of weak and ineffective state institutions. Approaching the problem from the perspectives of political science, history, and law, contributors explore the factors that contribute to successful governance under conditions of limited statehood. These include the involvement of nonstate actors and nonhierarchical modes of political influence. Empirical chapters analyze security governance by nonstate actors, the contribution of publicprivate partnerships to promote the United Nations Millennium Goals, the role of business in environmental governance, and the problems of Western state-building efforts, among other issues. Recognizing these forms of governance as legitimate, the contributors clarify the complexities of a system the developed world must negotiate in the coming century.
Topic:
International Relations, Political Theory, and History
Political Geography:
Global Focus
Publication Identifier:
9780231521871
Publication Identifier Type:
ISBN

2393. American Force: Dangers, Delusions, and Dilemmas in National Security

Author:
Richard K. Betts
Publication Date:
12-2011
Content Type:
Book
Institution:
Columbia University Press
Abstract:
While American national security policy has grown more interventionist since the Cold War, Washington has also hoped to shape the world on the cheap. Misled by the stunning success against Iraq in 1991, administrations of both parties have pursued ambitious aims with limited force, committing the country's military frequently yet often hesitantly, with inconsistent justification. These ventures have produced strategic confusion, unplanned entanglements, and indecisive results. This collection of essays by Richard K. Betts, a leading international politics scholar, investigates the use of American force since the end of the Cold War, suggesting guidelines for making it more selective and successful. Betts brings his extensive knowledge of twentieth century American diplomatic and military history to bear on the full range of theory and practice in national security, surveying the Cold War roots of recent initiatives and arguing that U.S. policy has always been more unilateral than liberal theorists claim. He exposes mistakes made by humanitarian interventions and peace operations; reviews the issues raised by terrorism and the use of modern nuclear, biological, and cyber weapons; evaluates the case for preventive war, which almost always proves wrong; weighs the lessons learned from campaigns in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Vietnam; assesses the rise of China and the resurgence of Russia; quells concerns about civil-military relations; exposes anomalies within recent defense budgets; and confronts the practical barriers to effective strategy. Betts ultimately argues for greater caution and restraint, while encouraging more decisive action when force is required, and he recommends a more dispassionate assessment of national security interests, even in the face of global instability and unfamiliar threats.
Topic:
International Relations, Political Theory, and Military Affairs
Political Geography:
United States and Global Focus
Publication Identifier:
9780231521888
Publication Identifier Type:
ISBN

2394. Arms Trafficking: The International and Domestic Legal Framework

Author:
Oona A. Hathaway, Elizabeth Nielsen, Chelsea Purvis, Saurrabh Sanghvi, and Sara Solow
Publication Date:
11-2011
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Global Legal Challenges, Yale Law School
Abstract:
The conventional arms trade,2 both legal and illegal, is vast in scope. As of 2001, there were an estimated half billion documented small arms in the world, more than one for every twelve people.3 International arms sales are a booming business, and the United States is the world’s largest exporter. In 2008, worldwide arms transfer agreements reached a value of $55.2 billion, of which 76.4% involved developing nations.4 The United States accounted for $37.8 billion, or 68.4%, of these worldwide arms transfer agreements,5 and U.S. activity falls into five categories: foreign military sales agreements between foreign governments and the Department of Defense, direct commercial sales to foreign buyers negotiated by U.S. companies, leases of military equipment by U.S. entities, excess defense materials, and emergency decreases of weapons stockpiles.6 An extensive legal regime has emerged at the international and domestic levels to regulate conventional arms trafficking. This report aims to provide an overview of that framework. It surveys existing international arms trafficking agreements and provides an analytic framework for distinguishing between them. It also surveys the domestic legal framework regarding arms trafficking. Together, these overviews provide a starting point for identifying the shortcomings of existing law, identifying gaps in the legal framework as it currently operates, and considering options to begin to address these shortcomings. This report begins in Part I by briefly outlining the scope of the problem of conventional arms trafficking. It then turns in Part II to identifying three fundamental axes on which international arms trafficking agreements differ. First, each agreement targets one or more points in a conventional arms life cycle: it targets the point of production; the point of domestic ownership and transfer; or the point of interstate transfer. Second, agreements differ in the scope of weapons they cover—they may target different classes of weapons (such as major conventional weapons, small arms and light weapons, and dual-use technologies) and different legal categories of weapons (for example, some cover both legal and illicit weapons, while others only focus on illicit weapons). Third, agreements differ in terms of their enforceability: some are legally binding while others set nonbinding goals. Part III of the report examines the ways in which the United States regulates arms trafficking through its domestic laws and international agreements. It shows that the United States places strong controls on interstate transfers of arms, but it has a more mixed record when it comes to regulating earlier stages of the arms life cycle. While U.S. law places a number of marking and recordkeeping requirements on arms producers and sellers, domestic ownership laws are lax compared to those of other countries. Part IV shows that there are three major gaps in extant arms trafficking agreements. First, the international agreements that are the most enforceable either fail to target arms trafficking at multiple points in the life cycle or fail to cover a broad scope of weapons. Second, arms trafficking agreements do not adequately regulate the illicit resale of arms in the black market after they are produced and sold for the first time legally. This is because there is no binding and enforceable agreement that requires states to track all domestic weapons transfers, from their initial sale to the final sale before their export. Finally, major arms suppliers, such as the United States, are not party to several major arms trafficking agreements. To address these shortcomings, this report offers three options available to U.S. policymakers for strengthening arms trafficking laws. First, the United States could increase multilateral engagement by ratifying the leading regional arms trafficking agreement, Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunitions, Explosives, and Other Related Materials (CIFTA). Doing so would likely require no changes in U.S. domestic law but would strengthen the U.S. ability to coordinate its arms control efforts with other countries while encouraging other countries to more effectively address arms trafficking. Second, the United States could increase bilateral programmatic assistance to address arms trafficking—at the very least by taking arms trafficking into account in existing assistance programs. Finally, the United States could engage more actively in leading negotiations over a robust and comprehensive arms trade treaty. Such an agreement would ideally aim to bring the international legal standards developed in CIFTA to the global stage. In leading the way toward such a comprehensive treaty, the United States could encourage universal adoption of the high standards the United States already has in place to ensure that arms are not transferred for illegitimate purposes—purposes that may directly affect U.S. security interests.
Topic:
International Trade and Finance, Arms Trade, Trafficking, Legal Theory, and Illegal Trade
Political Geography:
Global Focus

2395. War on Drugs

Author:
Global Commission On Drug Policy
Publication Date:
06-2011
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Global Commission On Drug Policy
Abstract:
The global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world. Fifty years after the initiation of the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and 40 years after President Nixon launched the US government's war on drugs, fundamental reforms in national and global drug control policies are urgently needed. In this seminal report, the Global Commission on Drug Policy calls on global leaders to join an open discussion on drug policy reform.
Topic:
War on Drugs, Public Policy, and Drugs
Political Geography:
United States and Global Focus

2396. Post G20 Seoul Summit Meeting and East Asia

Author:
Yves Tiberghien
Publication Date:
08-2011
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
East Asia Institute (EAI)
Abstract:
Since the 2008 financial crisis, the global economic system has entered a period of intense turbulence, higher systemic risk, and structural change. Many observers and policy-makers recognize the current period as a critical juncture , during which the system of global governance must be successfully upgraded to cope with increasingly globalized and volatile markets. In addition, the global system is undergoing a historic rebalancing in the distribution of power, a process marked by the rise of large emerging countries, primarily China, India, and Brazil. As a consequence, the share of OECD countries in the global GDP has shrunk from 60% to 50% between 2000 and 2011 (PPP basis). This new reality has empowered the new rising emerging economies to demand a larger say in global governance, as witnessed during the debates over the choice of a new IMF Managing Director in June 2011. By chance and also owing to its relatively careful initial design, the G20 Leaders Summit has emerged as the prime forum for the negotiation of changes in the global economic governance. In particular, the G20 represents a relatively stable equilibrium, due to its near equal balancing between developed OECD countries and emerging economies (nearly 10 to 10, depending how one codes Mexico and Korea). The G20 suffers somewhat from its large size, but at least enjoys support from most of its members due to its numerous opportunities for coalition-building and issue-specific balancing. It is true that the G20 in still in the process of proving itself and has to deal with many skeptics. Many analysts in Canada and the U.S. are quick to discount the G20 process as meaningless summitry among too many countries focused on widely divergent domestic agendas. Ian Bremmer and Nouriel Roubini both call this a G-zero situation. Likewise, many leaders in Japan, especially in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, are very skeptical about the G20’s potential and Japan has broadly not yet accepted the G20 as the central game of global governance, preferring to it the well-established G8. Yet, the G0 or G8 or G193 are not functional options. They represent default realities without the ability to solve any of our global problems. Only the G20 is able to deliver the necessary political leadership to initiate the upgrading of global governance. For this reason, the majority of key countries (including Europe, China, Korea, and many in the U.S.) see the G20 as the core game of global governance and the best option for the enhancement of global cooperation and the restructuring of global institutions. After an interim summit in Toronto, the Seoul summit came at a critical moment when the future of the G20 was in the balance. By managing to deliver visible results and institutional milestones, the Seoul Summit played a key role in the gradual institutionalization of the G20. The Seoul summit provided significant momentum to the G20 and significant legacies. It can be seen as a second high point after the London summit.
Topic:
Diplomacy, International Cooperation, G20, Economic Cooperation, and Summit
Political Geography:
Global Focus

2397. After the Busan Forum: Transformation of the International Development Aid Regime

Author:
Taekyoon Kim
Publication Date:
12-2011
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
East Asia Institute (EAI)
Abstract:
The 4th High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness (HLF-4) was held in Busan, South Korea from November 29 to December 1, 2011. This forum was the last of the four High Level Forums which were arranged to enhance the effectiveness of foreign aid from major donor countries led by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development-Development Assistance Group (OECD-DAC). Following the first HLF, the 2005 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness which contains specific action plans was endorsed at the second HLF. Then in 2008, the international development aid regime was finally institutionalized with the third HLF in Accra. The fourth HLF in Busan was expected to evaluate the progress made by the previous forums and to seek a comprehensive expansion of the existing international “aid” regime into a new international “development” regime. Considering that the deadline for the UN Millennium Development Goals is 2015, the Busan HLF-4 held particular significance as a rearrangement of international governance on aid effectiveness. Moreover, the Busan Forum was also a testing ground for South Korea’s soft power diplomacy which was related to the “development issues” that Seoul, during its presidency of the G20 in 2010, presented as a scheme to reduce the gap between developed and developing countries. In this context, it is important to evaluate the significance of Busan HLF-4 from the following three perspectives. Firstly, the agenda promoted most vigorously by the Busan Forum was to undertake a paradigm shift in development aid. This shift from “aid effectiveness” to “development effectiveness” encourages a multi-dimensional change in the international development aid regime. The shift reflects the international society’s efforts to desist from the conventional method of aid provision centered only on traditional donors, and to extensively and comprehensively embrace more development issues as well as a wider variety of aid providers as part of a more long-term development plan. This new concept of “development effectiveness” can also be found in the draft of the Busan Outcome Document (BOD) that was published after four successive meetings of the OECD-DAC “aid effectiveness” work team. However, if the sprawling concept of “development effectiveness” is not refined with apt and concrete principles, the Busan HLF-4 runs the risk of merely reiterating the five pillars of the Paris Declaration. Secondly, the forum was an attempt to integrate and restore the governance function of the international aid regime which is divided between the OECD-DAC-centered body of donors and the Non-OECD-DAC Donors (NODDs) that are pursuing an independent path. The so-called South-South Cooperation, consisting of NODDs such as China, India, and Brazil is widely welcomed by fragile states in Africa and East Asia for their focus on constructing infrastructure and prioritizing mutual respect and equality. This can however, disrupt the established international aid framework. The debate on aid effectiveness in 2010 predominated by the Paris Declaration regime was very much confined to the standard model of aid provision centered on DAC and its member states. Therefore, making the participation of emerging donors in the aid effectiveness commitments compulsory was a task of utmost significance at the Busan HLF-4. The involvement of the leading NODDs such as China in the Busan Forum elicited tentative hopes for an expansion of the international aid regime, and the proposition of traditional donors for South-South-North Triangular Cooperation during the forum also succeeded in expanding the point of compromise. Thirdly, another distinctive feature of the Busan HLF-4 was that it took place under the slogan of “Inclusive Partnership,” pursuing change that encourages the participation of diverse actors in the field of international development at the forum. This stood in contrast to previous forums where only the traditional donors of OECD-DAC were invited. For example, at the HLF-1 in Rome and the HLF-2 in Paris, only OECD-DAC member states, major multilateral organizations, and some partner recipient countries were invited to the forums. Civil Society Organizations (CSO) only came to be recognized as independent partners in the field of development assistance at the HLF-3 in Accra, but their proposals were still not reflected in the forum’s outcome to any substantial degree owing to the perfunctory level of their participation. The Busan HLF-4, however, embraced a much more extensive range of participants from the NODDs to civil sector participants such as CSOs and multinational corporations. This broader participation was possible because South Korea itself has experienced a successful transition from a recipient country to a donor country. With this background, South Korea could bridge the gap between recipients group and donors group. Moreover, CSOs led by Better Aid, a global organization for development cooperation, organized the “Open Forum for CSO Development Effectiveness” in the run-up to the Busan Forum. The CSOs strived to apply their policies on human rights, gender equality, and creation of healthy jobs to the Busan Outcome Document (BOD). Whether the inclusion of a diverse range of participants can bear substantive results depends on how well the demands of these actors can be reflected and translated into effective policies in the final draft of the BOD.
Topic:
Development, Humanitarian Aid, and Development Aid
Political Geography:
Global Focus

2398. Friend not Foe: Opening Spaces for Civil Society Engagement to Prevent Violent Extremism

Author:
David Cortright, Alistair Millar, Linda Gerber-Stellingwerf, George A. Lopez, Eliot Fackler, and Joshua Weaver
Publication Date:
04-2011
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Fourth Freedom Forum
Abstract:
One of the less known aspects of the tragic 9/11 events and the subsequent global war on terror is the chilling impact counterterrorism measures have had on civil society and citizens’ agency. Ten years later the phrase ‘war on terror’ is no longer used officially, but measures that curtail the operational and political freedoms of civic organizations worldwide in the name of countering terrorism continue to be real, tangible, and strongly counterproductive.The report by David Cortright et al, Friend not Foe: Opening Spaces for Civil Society Engagement to Prevent Violent Extremism, gives a comprehensive and vivid account of the challenges that civil society groups continue to face worldwide in protecting and expanding their political voice and operational space. The first edition of this report focused primarily on the e8ects of counterterrorism measures on civil society in the Global South. This updated version places the closing of civil society space in a wider global context of securitization of aid, de-funding of civil society, and civil military cooperation. It gives a crystal clear account of the persistent shift in international cooperation policy from sustainable development as an intrinsic public good to development as an instrument for national and geopolitical security and economic goals.
Topic:
Civil Society, Gender Issues, Terrorism, Violent Extremism, Sustainable Development Goals, and Peace
Political Geography:
Global Focus

2399. Globalization: Curse or Cure? Policies to Harness Global Economic Integration to Solve Our Economic Challenge

Author:
Jagadeesh Gokhale
Publication Date:
02-2010
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
The Cato Institute
Abstract:
Globalization holds tremendous promise to improve human welfare but can also cause conflicts and crises as witnessed during 2007–09. How will competition for resources, employment, and growth shape economic policies among developed nations as they attempt to maintain productivity growth, social protections, and extensive political and cultural freedoms?
Topic:
Development, Economics, Globalization, and International Trade and Finance
Political Geography:
Global Focus

2400. Feminist Uluslararası İlişkiler Yaklaşımı: Temelleri, Gelişimi, Katkı ve Sorunları

Author:
Özlem Tür Tür and Çiğdem Aydın Koyuncu
Publication Date:
08-2010
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Uluslararasi Iliskiler
Institution:
Uluslararasi Iliskiler
Abstract:
This article aims at analyzing the major arguments, criticisms and contributions of the feminist international relations approach, which started to become important in the discipline from late 1980s onwards. Feminist international relations approach argues that there is a hidden male perspective in the discipline and female ideas, problems and changes that women go through are neglected. International Relations discipline is also criticised for being particularistic and subjective. This article will first look at the development of the feminist approach in the international relations discipline and analyze its major criticisms of traditional theories and concepts. The article will later look at different types of feminism and will question the contributions and limitations of the feminist approach to the international relations discipline.
Topic:
Women
Political Geography:
Global Focus