The current focus by scholars and policymakers on the role of religion in international relations is a welcome development. It’s transnational power can serve as a force for both good or ill by challenging the exclusive authority of states over their citizens, and debates over religious issues cannot be understood without taking religious beliefs into account.
The death of Qaddafi is, naturally, a very public symbol that his reign of oppression is over and will not return, but this is not the end of the story for Libyans, the UN or NATO. The campaign to maintain peace between the various factions could prove to be more difficult than the defeat of Qaddafi’s forces.
Recent years have seen the intensification of political tensions between various states in the Pacific and East Asia. The rise of China as a military and economic power has necessarily triggered concern in the region, causing nations to reexamine their air-power procurement and development plans.
Some are calling the coalition intervention that began 19 March 2011, in Libya a success. I call tens of thousands of deaths and injuries a tragedy. When such casualties occur owing to a military intervention never shown to be necessary, the intervention is a failure.
As Turkey readies sanctions against Syria, there is some confusion as to how one best reads the relationship between these two neighbors. Until this year, the government of Turkey led by the Justice and Development Party (AKP) appeared friendly with the Assad regime, and has spent the recent months diplomatically urging Bashar Assad to curb his violent crackdowns against protesters.
Modernity-inspired international development has often failed when not taking into account local context, culture and belief. Failing to consider religion risks the failure of enduring social change. This seems a more productive and appropriate way of framing societies and people’s lives, rather than suggesting secularity should supersede other forms of faith.
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.
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.
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.
There is an urge now, on a social as well as political level, to settle the Darfur question lest it eventually goes down the same route as the South. But the question here is whether Darfur can actually be compared at all with the South; is separation even an option for ending the conflict?
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.