Because of the deep concern on the part of many UN member states that RtoP could give rise to a regime change agenda and the equally deep global opposition to such an agenda, it is incumbent on us to explore the relationship more deeply in order to ascertain whether there are ways of maintaining a clear distinction between RtoP and regime change without sacrificing the protection of civilians.
Twenty years ago, the country known until then as Yugoslavia plunged into war. Over the next decade, a succession of armed conflicts on the territory of the “former Yugoslavia” would recurrently make headlines. The wars spelled the end not just of a multinational state, but of any prospect of a viable multinational society at a local level.
Recent developments in the South China Sea and China’s emphasis on the modernization of its military raise important issues for the future of U.S. strategic manoeuvring in the region. What can be done to sustain future U.S. presence in Asia while tactfully maintaining a favourable position for its interests and the stability in the region?
Throughout the history of Western political philosophy and politics, thinking about peace has been an important and constant effort. The spectrum of questions raised encompasses enquiries such as how to accomplish peace, how to justify the breaking of peace, and how to define peace; and relates to problems such as the relation between war and peace, just war, ius in bellum and ius at bellum.
We are routinely presented with the image of an angry bearded man, possibly a clip from a video linked to Al-Qaeda, and then an unspecific warning of an imminent threat. We are asked to be concerned, but not allowed to be informed. The implicit equivalence of margin with radical and radical with violence makes for perpetual insecurity in modern societies.
David Cameron’s mid-September visit to Moscow had three objectives: to revive the practice of top level contacts; to boost trade and investment; and to put down some markers about values. Choosing either greater central control or more liberal development has its risks. It is in the interests of Britain to work with Russia towards the second.
In the months since South Sudan’s declaration of independence from Sudan, the international community’s gaze has regrettably shifted from ongoing instability in the two Sudans. As has become imminently clear in the short post-independence period, a path toward comprehensive conflict resolution within and between the two Sudans will necessitate a profound shift in policy priorities, approaches, and partnerships.
In the wake of 9/11, private actors have played an increasingly crucial role at both sides of the conflict. Not only is the war on terror a response to the unprecedented threat posed by non-state actors such as terrorist networks; it is also a conflict characterized by a growing role of commercial actors supporting bureaucracies and military organizations.
I recently read an insightful blog entry by a doctoral candidate at LSE, John Collins. The entry neatly outlines how liberal intervention in Iraq impacted the foreign policies of Iran and North Korea, as well as discusses how NATO’s engagement in Libya relates to liberal interventionism.
The July 2011 attacks in Norway have once again brought the issues surrounding success of far right parties and movements to the fore in Europe, as well as governmental responses to immigration and immigrant integration. Although Anders Breivik attacked members of the Norwegian governing party, his “manifesto” focused on support for multiculturalism and the spread of Islam.
Before you download your free e-book, please consider donating to support open access publishing.
E-IR is an independent non-profit publisher run by an all volunteer team. Your donations allow us to invest in new open access titles and pay our bandwidth bills to ensure we keep our existing titles free to view. Any amount, in any currency, is appreciated. Many thanks!
Donations are voluntary and not required to download the e-book - your link to download is below.