Despite Nigeria’s transition to democracy there are trends towards identity-driven political agitation by well-armed youth militia or vigilante groups engaged in acts of violence as responses to alienation from the state, economic decline, unemployment, and the militarization of society by decades of military rule. This underscores the persistence of militarism within some sections of civil society in a ‘democracy-from-above’ which has in practice largely favoured vested interests, and all but closed the prospects for political participation, dialogue and grassroots democratization.
The growing presence of international NGOs (INGOs) in Africa is both a manifestation of, and a major reinforcement for, a political process which is neither democratic in the traditional sense nor authoritarian. Voting takes place, but most governments use the advantages of incumbency to ensure their regular re-election. Opposition parties with little prospect of victory have limited scope for demanding changes in governmental behaviour or policy. NGOs, in contrast, are less easily ignored.
Where collective security avenues are blocked, could a State, or States acting jointly, lawfully intervene militarily in another State’s territory without the permission of the Government of that State to halt or prevent it from committing atrocities against its own people? What about intervention where the territorial Government is unable or unwilling to provide basic humanitarian assistance to its people in the face of natural or human-made disaster?
This essay argues that the war on terror that followed the 9/11 attacks on the United States is fundamentally misconceived and is actually achieving the opposite to what was intended. The architects of the war on terror have been chasing rainbows since 2001 as the harder they have run towards their goal, the further away it has seemed to move.
Watching for signs of war with Iran, many of us probably took our eyes off other hot spots where President Bush’s imminent departure is a strategic consideration. Georgia’s Saakashvili launched his military action to regain control of South Ossetia, no doubt with the departure in mind and probably thinking America’s pro-war administration would back him. Yet his decision was unlawful and foolhardy.
The dilemmas surrounding international intervention into the domestic affairs of brutal regimes such as Burma or Zimbabwe are often discussed. Nevertheless, there is also room for the less-examined question of the legitimacy of international pressure in cases where the violating state is a liberal democracy. Should this influence the set of considerations that other democratic states take into account when they decide whether or not to interfere in their domestic affairs?
Despite repeated warnings from international NGOs and regional experts, most of the international community chose to ignore signs of the brooding conflict. It is only now, when both sides are counting the dead, that attention has turned to this war torn part of the world. However, the origins of the fighting are deeply embedded in the security situation in the post Soviet space.
Processes of conflict management and resolution are not unlimited. They proceed in a distinct setting, a recognizable format. This article is about the interconnectedness between process and structure, flow and bedding, river and shore. Through an analysis of various boundaries in negotiation, this article considers the importance of the context for the process and its impact.
There has been a lot written about the role of private security in international relations since the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Much of it is emotional outpouring that either demonises the industry or represents it as a silver bullet that can transform humanitarian interventions. What such work lacks is a critical assessment of the potential utility offered by private security companies in expeditionary warfare
The United States, as the most powerful state in the international system, has adopted two radically differing approaches in answer the post-Cold War security dilemma. It is a choice between these alternative approaches that the presidential candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama, now pose in quite stark form.
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.
