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?
Bipolarity is based on constant tension, which leads to competition, and ultimately, war. International political economy is regarded as the principal focus of the forces of globalization and the main way in which it is transmitted throughout the world. With the end of bipolarity and the disappearance of barriers between people, is the emergence of a unipolar world a world order based on globalisation?
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.
This essay argues that the absence of a major war between North (DPRK) and South Korea (ROK) does not disprove the offense-defense theory (ODT) because the theory is capable of explaining the prevalence of peace under conditions when the defense has the advantage.
The year 2005 has meant a rejection of a viable constitutional project for the European Union. After a reconsideration and political stylization of the Constitutional Treaty, the Treaty of Lisbon was put together and signed by all of the 27 member states on the 13th of December 2007. What developments did it contain?
There is much discussion between those who believe the EU should remain a wholly civilian (soft) power and those who argue that it should develop a military (hard) dimension. There is also a lively debate between those who seek to develop an autonomous military identity (Europeanists) and those who see Europe’s military future in NATO (Atlanticists). But does the EU need an army?
There has been much debate on how to interpret Hobbes; especially whether he is to be understood as a materialist utilitarian, deducing his theory from an egoistic psychology and explaining obligation through rational calculation of self-interest, or whether, he is in fact, more of a Kantian deontologist adhering to the tradition of natural law. This essay argues against the latter position.
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.
