The belief that we can teleologically strive towards dissolving all societies’ ills has been diverted to a quest to live in a world of tolerable risks. Furthermore, Ulrich Beck’s thesis that we live in a risk society has now been transposed into a world of globalisation. Where we used to deter dangers and threats, we now perpetually manage strategic risks.
This paper will evaluate and analyse the poverty alleviation strategies manifested by the World Bank, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), explaining how they have converged over time. With the use of case studies it will argue that, whilst it might seem that the convergence has benefited poverty reduction, this is in fact not the case.
The international system, comprised as it is of a society of sovereign states, necessarily stands as a barrier to universal morality. The ideal of cosmopolitanism, envisioning humanity as a singular and unified moral community, is impossible in a world where the primary political unit is the state.
American aversion to counterinsurgency is deeply ingrained in the American way of warfare. Since the 1940s the US Army has trained, equipped, and organised for large-scale conventional operations against like adversaries. They have traditionally employed conventional military operations even against irregular enemies. I hope to show that America’s conventional supremacy and in particular their approach to war may prove to be counterproductive in this new century of small wars.
In looking at the cases of Angola, Indonesia and Zaire it can be clearly demonstrated that though minerals are of significance they are only so because of political decisions. The discussion begins with an evaluation of the ‘resource curse’ argument looking closely at its empirical grounding and two main explanatory models: rent seeking and the rentier state. The robustness of this analysis is then questioned and the relationship of mineral resources and politics to the root of violent conflict is assessed through the use of detailed case studies.
Liberal fire-brand William Gladstone launched his election campaign to become British Prime Minister in 1880 during what was being described by contemporaries as the ‘Great Depression’. The ‘People’s William’ was elected primarily on the back of his promise to reverse the Conservative Party’s jingoistic, imperialist foreign policy under Benjamin Disraeli’s tenure.
Theory can never be detached from situational context. Far from even contemplating the possibility of bias-free analysis, I argue that any knowledge claim must always be inherently political in nature, capable of stimulating or withholding change in the social context in which the claimant is embedded. If this (admittedly divisive) assumption is correct, it seems the theorist, including the IR theorist, has two somewhat polar options. He can concentrate on and develop theory that ‘leads to analysis that is pro-status quo and amoral’, or alternatively he can concentrate on the critical evaluation of how we come to see a certain range of possibilities in the international arena.
Through its evaluation supported by case studies, this paper will argue that to an extent the relationship between the two sets of NGOs is based upon partnership. However it will go on to argue that to a greater extent, the relationship between NNGOs and SNGOs is not free from local and international agendas and as a result, the power sharing context of partnership disproportionately favours the NNGOs.
In recent years declassified documents relating to attempts by the Kennedy administration at withdrawing US forces from the conflict in Vietnam have been released, causing much debate among scholars and historians. Previously not much was written about Kennedy’s decision to withdraw US personnel from Vietnam in over 40 years of historical writing.
This essay argues that the relationship of strategic interdependence between local NGOs and foreign donors is inherently asymmetrical and has important organizational and managerial consequences for NGOs in terms of their identity, activities and reporting; autonomy, legitimacy and accountability; and, in that it further perpetuates global/local and North/South asymmetries.
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.
