Search

Begin New Search Topic Military Intervention Publication Year within 3 Years

31. The Saudi-Emirati axis and the preservation of regional order

Author:
Gertjan Hoetjes
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Clingendael Netherlands Institute of International Relations
Abstract:
The Arab uprisings of 2011 spurred the emergence of a Saudi-Emirati axis that sought to mitigate and – where possible – eliminate challenges posed by what these countries perceive as the so-called ‘triple threat’ to the regional order of the Middle East and North Africa: Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood and violent extremist groups. Using a variety of foreign policy instruments - including military intervention and strategic outreach, funding allies and proxies as well as supporting religious networks and media outlets – the axis substantially shaped or influenced the domestic and regional events that occurred in the wake of the Arab uprisings. Broadly speaking, the Saudis and Emiratis have been successful in maintaining a monarchical/authoritarian pole in the region’s political order in their quest for domination. They have succeeded in doing so mainly through the use of soft power (finance, religious influence and media framing) in relation to weaker ‘client’ states in the region such as Bahrain, Jordan and Morocco. Their military interventions have generally not achieved their intended objectives and Saudi as well as Emirati shortcomings have been on full display in Yemen, Libya and Syria. While both countries were unable to prevent the emergence of a more multipolar regional order that includes Turkey and Iran, they have effectively helped smother popular calls for political renewal. Growing regional geopolitical competition has, however, not gone hand in hand with growing domestic turmoil. The vast financial reserves, increasing hard power and substantial reservoirs of soft power of both Saudi Arabia and the Emirates ensures that they will continue to act as defenders of the monarchical status quo of the Gulf region and its web of client states in the foreseeable future, even as competition between both partners increases at the same time.
Topic:
International Relations, Foreign Policy, Violent Extremism, Geopolitics, and Military Intervention
Political Geography:
Middle East, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates

32. The American Withdrawal from Afghanistan, One Year Later

Author:
Yoram Schweitzer and Eldad Shavit
Publication Date:
08-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Institute for National Security Studies (INSS)
Abstract:
Global considerations prompted the United States’ decision to withdraw from Afghanistan, not military pressure from the Taliban. This is evident one year after the withdrawal, despite the difficult scenes of the first few days after the Taliban takeover of the capital, Kabul, and the victory celebrations of the Taliban and al-Qaeda. Furthermore, at this stage the danger of an international wave of terrorism in the West led by al-Qaeda does not appear to be a concrete and immediate threat. The killing by the United States via an armed UAV of al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, who was hiding in Kabul, has also contributed to the organization's weakness and put it on the defensive. For the US administration and from a long-term perspective, the withdrawal was the right step, which did not harm the United States' superpower standing and even enabled greater attention and resources for coping with the main challenges currently posed by China and Russia.
Topic:
Security, Military Strategy, Military Intervention, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, Middle East, North America, and United States of America

33. Ending Primacy to End U.S. Wars

Author:
Daniel Bessner
Publication Date:
04-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:
• If America’s decision-makers are to learn from the Iraq War (2003–11), they must recognize it not as an aberration or an isolated mistake, but as a direct consequence of the U.S. search for primacy in the Middle East. The Iraq War was overdetermined in that tensions between the U.S. and Iraq were rooted fundamentally in Iraq’s perceived challenge to U.S. regional dominance. Consequently, in the “unipolar moment,” a U.S. effort to change the regime in Baghdad was bound to occur after some spark, such as the September 11 attacks, set it in motion. • Today, a similar desire to sustain dominance in Asia places the U.S. on a collision course with China. To avoid war with China, policy elites must reconceive their commitment to primacy and recognize that the United States will not be able to dictate terms in its relations with others in an emergent multipolar world. • Some competition between the United States and China is probably inevitable. But this competition does not present an existential threat to the U.S. and therefore must not be allowed to prevent necessary cooperation to address the major threats of the 21st century: inequality, population movements, pandemics, and climate change.
Topic:
War, History, Hegemony, Military Intervention, and Gulf War
Political Geography:
China, Middle East, and United States of America

34. Military Intervention on Request in Jus Ad Bellum and Jus In Bello and the question of recognition of governments

Author:
Chiari Redealli
Publication Date:
11-2022
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Institution:
The Goettingen Journal of International Law
Abstract:
Over the past decades, foreign interventions in internal conflicts upon the request of host governments have turned into a common practice. These instances have proved to be particularly challenging both from a jus ad bellum and a jus in bello point of view. On the one hand, it is often unclear whether the intervention is lawful; on the other hand, the classification of these armed conflicts is equally problematic. In both cases, the key to answer these questions is the identification of the organ capable of speaking on behalf of the state: who is the government? Considering the pivotal relevance of the identification of the government both in jus ad bellum and jus in bello, it is crucial to determine the criteria for identifying the authority capable of issuing a valid invitation. This article seeks to clarify these criteria. Ultimately, it will demonstrate that jus ad bellum and jus in bello reach different conclusions on the matter and it will argue that this should not be the case.
Topic:
International Law, Humanitarian Intervention, Military Intervention, Conflict, and International Humanitarian Law (IHL)
Political Geography:
Global Focus