Britain and Germany are, together with France, the so-called E-3. These the states have most advanced economies of Europe, and from the point of view of European security, face the highest expenses and are provided with the most numerous and best equipped armies on the continent. Each have used the process of European Integration and the development of a Common Foreign and Security Policy to pursue their national interests.
The weakening of the prohibition on the use of force since 9/11 has been essentially due to other Articles in the UN Charter which act as loop holes. The USA and its allies have undermined Article 2.4 in the Charter by using Article 51, whereas no punishment (except perhaps the general disapproval of the international society) has been issued.
Pluralist arguments that human rights can be properly respected through the state system are more convincing than cosmopolitan claims because they recognise the diversity of cultures and national systems which exist in the world.
The administrations of President Bush and President Obama have not provided many more details on how they assess just what these targeting practices are or how they operate. While they offer assurances that their procedures meet the necessary requirements of the laws of war in terms of distinction and proportionality, they have not offered any evidence of the actual overview process.
Professor Peter Vale’s provocative piece on “The Responsibility of IR Scholars” deserves comment which I suspect many e-IR readers will provide. Let me offer mine in this blog. I must say that I would hardly claim to be an IR Scholar as I was trained in political economy and government […]
After the attacks there was an automatic shift in intelligence interest from state to non-state actors. Agencies changed from gatherers into hunters, searching for any information revealing possible threat of attack. Compared to standard state targets, Al- Qaeda and other global terrorist groups were more difficult to find, target and spy on due to their mobility.
Those eager to advise the prince often take the logic of Realist IR into dark places where fateful decisions are made. Why are so few voices in IR raised in dissent? And what must/should happen to those who carried the craft towards those fateful moments? And, most importantly, what’s to be done?
The external relations of the European Union with the Arab countries of the southern bank of the Mediterranean, institutionalised initially through the Barcelona process, then the ENP and today the Union for the Mediterranean, are predicated on the twin pillars of political stability and economic integration into a liberal free trade area. The approach is both a policy and a moral failure.
During the 1990s the political elites of liberal democratic states began to lean towards the norm which Kofi Annan, in his speech to the UN General Assembly in September, 1999, labeled as a norm to forcibly protect civilians who are at risk from genocide and mass killing. This undeniably raises the question: is it a good idea to intervene in humanitarian crises?
The year 1989 will remain in a global history as direct beginning of Soviet Union’s collapse which was finalized in the 1991. This year will also stay in world remembrance as a founding date of probably best known terrorist organization – Al-Qaeda. How well has US intelligence performed against this threat?
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.