Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
International Response (international + response)
Selected AbstractsEnding Wars and Building Peace: International Responses to War-Torn Societies1INTERNATIONAL STUDIES PERSPECTIVES, Issue 1 2008Charles T. Call Scholars and practitioners of international relations have devoted increasing attention to how cease-fires, once achieved, may be translated into sustained peace. In recent years, the United Nations, the World Bank, and the United States and other governments have revamped their institutional architecture for addressing post-conflict reconstruction and peacebuilding. The creation in 2006 of a UN Peacebuilding Commission exemplifies these changes. The relationship between weak states and the durability of peace has acquired new emphasis in IR research. This article analyzes recent conceptual developments in post-conflict peacebuilding, relating them to new thinking about fragile states. It then analyzes the international architecture for addressing post-conflict peacebuilding, identifying gaps, and analyzing likely policy challenges in the near future. We argue that despite important analytic insights and institutional changes, serious challenges persist in efforts to prevent wars from recurring. [source] EXPLORING DISPARITIES BETWEEN GLOBAL HIV/AIDS FUNDING AND RECENT TSUNAMI RELIEF EFFORTS: AN ETHICAL ANALYSISDEVELOPING WORLD BIOETHICS, Issue 1 2007TIMOTHY CHRISTIE ABSTRACT Objective:, To contrast relief efforts for the 26 December 2004 tsunami with current global HIV/AIDS relief efforts and analyse possible reasons for the disparity. Methods:, Literature review and ethical analysis. Results:, Just over 273,000 people died in the tsunami, resulting in relief efforts of more than US$10 bn, which is sufficient to achieve the United Nation's long-term recovery plan for South East Asia. In contrast, 14 times more people died from HIV/AIDS in 2004, with UNAIDS predicting a US$8 bn funding gap for HIV/AIDS in developing nations between now and 2007. This disparity raises two important ethical questions. First, what is it that motivates a more empathic response to the victims of the tsunami than to those affected by HIV/AIDS? Second, is there a morally relevant difference between the two tragedies that justifies the difference in the international response? The principle of justice requires that two cases similarly situated be treated similarly. For the difference in the international response to the tsunami and HIV/AIDS to be justified, the tragedies have to be shown to be dissimilar in some relevant respect. Are the tragedies of the tsunami disaster and the HIV/AIDS pandemic sufficiently different, in relevant respects, to justify the difference in scope of the response by the international community? Conclusion:, We detected no morally relevant distinction between the tsunami and the HIV/AIDS pandemic that justifies the disparity. Therefore, we must conclude that the international response to HIV/AIDS violates the fundamental principles of justice and fairness. [source] Forced Displacement in Darfur, Sudan: Dilemmas of Classifying the CrimesINTERNATIONAL MIGRATION, Issue 2 2008Klejda Mulaj ABSTRACT The ongoing forced displacement in Darfur has occasioned renewed interest in the phenomena of genocide and ethnic cleansing. Whereas the international response to the conflict has been considered promptly and elaborately by various analysts, few have paid sufficient attention, in the first instance, to the controversy surrounding the debate about the definition of the situation and the classification of crimes involved. Following an overview of the current conflict, the unfolding analysis seeks to show that the terminological debate reveals discrepancies in legal definitions and interpretations that may suggest that existing law may be inadequate to fully capture the nature of the crimes committed in Darfur. Confusion with the terminology has contributed to making the conflict more intractable. In addition, disagreement on a common definition of the situation has tended to justify inaction or limited involvement on the part of the international community. This article suggests that it is therefore necessary to resolve the terminological debate in order to ensure that no energy is wasted in arguing about the indeterminacy of the terms in the future and effective responses to mass violations of human rights are crafted in a timely fashion. [source] State Sovereignty After 9/11: Disorganised HypocrisyPOLITICAL STUDIES, Issue 2 2007Amitav Acharya This article examines the implications of the 9/11 attacks and the US-led ,global war on terror' for debates about state sovereignty. To support its attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, the Bush administration put forth a ,selective sovereignty' thesis that would legitimise intervention in states that are accused of supporting terrorists. This new rationale for intervention was paradoxically justified as a means of ensuring a ,well-ordered world of sovereign states', which had been imperilled by transnational terrorist networks. This article argues that the ,selective sovereignty' thesis exaggerates the challenge posed by terrorist organisations to Westphalian sovereignty, and understates the US's own unprincipled violation of its core norm of non-intervention. A related argument of this article is that on the face of it, the ,selective sovereignty' approach fits the notion of ,organised hypocrisy' put forward by Stephen Krasner, which refers to ,the presence of long-standing norms [in this case non-intervention] that are frequently violated' for the sake of some ,higher principles', violations that are generally tolerated by the international community. But the higher principles evoked by the US to justify its war on Iraq, such as the human rights of the Iraqis, and democracy promotion in the Middle East, are now clearly seen to have been a façade to mask the geopolitical and ideological underpinnings of the invasion. In this sense, the war on terror has revived national security and naked self-interest as the principal rationale for intervention, notwithstanding the self-serving efforts by some Bush administration officials to ,graft' the ,selective sovereignty' thesis on to the evolving humanitarian intervention principle. This policy framework is hypocrisy for sure, but as the international response to the war on Iraq (including the lack of UN authorisation for the war and the transatlantic discord it generated) demonstrates, it should be viewed more as a case of ,disorganised hypocrisy'. [source] Biosecurity and the international response to HIV/AIDS: governmentality, globalisation and securityAREA, Issue 3 2010Alan Ingram A growing critical literature examines the rise of biosecurity. HIV/AIDS has been mentioned in this literature as a biosecurity issue, but despite its importance as a major global health problem, the ways in which HIV/AIDS might be considered a matter of biosecurity have not been explored in depth. This article addresses this issue, particularly in relation to the international response to HIV/AIDS, through the conceptual prism of governmentality and in relation to concerns about globalisation and security. Following a discussion of the relevance of governmentality to research on the intersections between globalisation and security, the article considers biosecurity and the international response to HIV/AIDS in terms of modes of problematisation and institutionalisation. In terms of problematisation, it argues that while some biosecurity issues and HIV/AIDS have been addressed as emergencies, the characteristics of anticipation, preparedness, emergence and pre-emption, which are central to the dominant formation of biosecurity, are less relevant to HIV/AIDS. As the article shows, the two fields have also been institutionalised in rather distinct ways. It therefore cautions against regarding the international response to HIV/AIDS as a biosecurity intervention. In conclusion, the article identifies three broad avenues for further research: unpacking the politics of global health and security during recession; engaging with theoretical debates around governmentality; and engaging with problems of space. [source] | ||||||||||