Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Paix --- Peace --- Politics and war --- Politiek en oorlog --- Politique et guerre --- Vrede --- 814 Theorie van de internationale betrekkingen --- International relations --- -Politics and war --- World politics --- -Colonialism --- Global politics --- International politics --- Political history --- Political science --- World history --- Eastern question --- Geopolitics --- International organization --- War --- War and politics --- Coexistence --- Foreign affairs --- Foreign policy --- Foreign relations --- Global governance --- Interdependence of nations --- International affairs --- Peaceful coexistence --- World order --- National security --- Sovereignty --- Coexistence, Peaceful --- Disarmament --- Peace-building --- Security, International --- Philosophy --- Political aspects --- -Philosophy --- -War --- Colonialism --- 1989 --- -Peace --- -International relations

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

The question of when or if a nation should intervene in another country's affairs is one of the most important concerns in today's volatile world. Taking John Stuart Mill's famous 1859 essay 'A Few Words on Non-Intervention' as his starting point, the author addresses the thorny issue of when a state's sovereignty should be respected and when it should be overridden or disregarded by other states in the name of humanitarian protection, national self-determination, or national security. In this time of complex social and political interplay and increasingly sophisticated and deadly weaponry, the author reinvigorates Mill's principles for a new era while assessing the new United Nations doctrine of responsibility to protect. In the twenty-first century, intervention can take many forms : military and economic, unilateral and multilateral. The author's thought-provoking argument examines essential moral and legal questions underlying significant American foreign policy dilemmas of recent years, including Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

INTERVENTION (INTERNATIONAL LAW) --- RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT (INTERNATIONAL LAW) --- MILL, JOHN STUART, 1806-1873--POLITICAL AND SOCIAL VIEWS

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

International relations. Foreign policy

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Does the United States have the right to defend itself by striking first, or must it wait until an attack is in progress? Is the Bush Doctrine of aggressive preventive action a justified and legal recourse against threats posed by terrorists and rogue states? Tackling one of the most controversial policy issues of the post-September 11 world, Michael Doyle argues that neither the Bush Doctrine nor customary international law is capable of adequately responding to the pressing security threats of our times. In Striking First, Doyle shows how the Bush Doctrine has consistently disregarded a vital distinction in international law between acts of preemption in the face of imminent threats and those of prevention in the face of the growing offensive capability of an enemy. Taking a close look at the Iraq war, the 1998 attack against al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and the Cuban Missile Crisis, among other conflicts, he contends that international law must rely more completely on United Nations Charter procedures and develop clearer standards for dealing with lethal but not immediate threats. After explaining how the UN can again play an important role in enforcing international law and strengthening international guidelines for responding to threats, he describes the rare circumstances when unilateral action is indeed necessary. Based on the 2006 Tanner Lectures at Princeton University, Striking First includes responses by distinguished political theorists Richard Tuck and Jeffrey McMahan and international law scholar Harold Koh, yielding a lively debate that will redefine how--and for what reasons--tomorrow's wars are fought.

National security --- War (International law) --- Preemptive attack (Military science) --- Sanctions (International law) --- Intervention (International law) --- Homeland defense --- Homeland security --- Hostilities --- International law --- Neutrality --- Anticipatory self-defense (Military science) --- Preemption (Military science) --- Preemptive strikes (Military science) --- Preemptive warfare --- Military art and science --- Strategy --- International sanctions (International law) --- Penalties (International law) --- Military intervention --- Diplomacy --- Philosophy.