Search

Begin New Search Topic International Affairs Publishing Institution Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University

21. Market Mechanisms and the Paris Agreement

Author:
Robert Stavins and Robert Stowe
Publication Date:
10-2017
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
Abstract:
The Harvard Project on Climate Agreements has released a volume of seventeen briefs summarizing research on options for elaborating the Paris Agreement's Article 6, the evolution of market-based systems, and how these two processes might best support each other. The briefs are designed to be readily accessible — and, it is hoped, useful — to negotiators, policy makers, and other stakeholders, as they consider how to elaborate the Paris Agreement in order to realize its potential to effectively address global climate change. Most authors were participants in a research workshop conducted by the Harvard Project on July 6, 2017, and the volume builds upon the discussions in that forum. Participants included twenty of the world's leading researchers focusing on market mechanisms and the Paris Agreement, coming from the disciplines of economics, political science, international relations, and law — and based in Europe, the Republic of Korea, and the United States.
Topic:
International Affairs and Global Political Economy
Political Geography:
Global Focus

22. The Showdown That Wasn't: U.S.-Israeli Relations and American Domestic Politics, 1973–75

Author:
Galen Jackson
Publication Date:
03-2015
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
International Security
Institution:
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
Abstract:
How influential are domestic politics on U.S. foreign affairs? With regard to Middle East policy, how important a role do ethnic lobbies, Congress, and public opinion play in influencing U.S. strategy? Answering these questions requires the use of archival records and other primary documents, which provide an undistorted view of U.S. policymakers' motivations. The Ford administration's 1975 reassessment of its approach to Arab-Israeli statecraft offers an excellent case for the examination of these issues in light of this type of historical evidence. President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger decided, in large part because of the looming 1976 presidential election, to avoid a confrontation with Israel in the spring and summer of 1975 by choosing to negotiate a second disengagement agreement between Egypt and Israel rather than a comprehensive settlement. Nevertheless, domestic constraints on the White House's freedom of action were not insurmountable and, had they had no other option, Ford and Kissinger would have been willing to engage in a showdown with Israel over the Middle East conflict's most fundamental aspects. The administration's concern that a major clash with Israel might stoke an outbreak of anti-Semitism in the United States likely contributed to its decision to back down.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Regional Cooperation, International Affairs, and Domestic politics
Political Geography:
United States, Israel, and Palestine

23. "Grounds for War: The Evolution of Territorial Conflict"

Author:
Monica Duffy Toft and Dominic D.P. Johnson
Publication Date:
04-2014
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
International Security
Institution:
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
Abstract:
The Badme region in the Horn of Africa is claimed by both Ethiopia and Eritrea. It contains few natural resources, and neither state considers it to have strategic value. As one local merchant put it, however, "It's territory, you know. We'll die for our country."
Topic:
International Affairs
Political Geography:
Africa, Iran, Ethiopia, and Eritrea

24. Beyond Optimism and Pessimism: The Differential Effects of Nuclear Proliferation

Author:
Matthew Kroenig
Publication Date:
11-2009
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University
Abstract:
What is the effect of the spread of nuclear weapons on international politics? The scholarly debate pits proliferation optimists, who claim that “more may be better,” against proliferation pessimists, who argue that “more will be worse.” These scholars focus on the aggregate effects of nuclear proliferation, but never explicitly consider the differential effects of the spread of nuclear weapons. In other words, they do not examine whether nuclear proliferation may threaten some states more than others. I propose a theory of nuclear proliferation that examines the differential effects of nuclear proliferation. I argue that the threat nuclear proliferation poses to a particular state depends on that state's ability to project military power. The spread of nuclear weapons is worse for states that have the ability to project conventional military power over a potential nuclear weapon state primarily because nuclear proliferation constrains their conventional military freedom of action. On the other hand, nuclear proliferation is less threatening to, and can sometimes even improve the strategic environment of, states that lack the ability to project power over a potential nuclear weapon state, because the spread of nuclear weapons disproportionately constrains other, more powerful states. This article contributes to our understanding of the consequences of nuclear proliferation and contains important implications for nuclear nonproliferation policy.
Topic:
Conflict Prevention, Arms Control and Proliferation, Nuclear Weapons, and International Affairs