No / The dichotomy between prohibitive law and moral responsibility is at the centre of debates about the legitimacy of humanitarian intervention. However, political interests remain an important factor not only in determining and tempering the humanitarian impulses of states, but also for gauging their more general adherence to the rule of law. The humanitarian intervention debate only has meaning in a context in which there is general, routine adherence to the non-interventionist norm of the international system, codified as Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. The `Bush Doctrine¿ of pre-emptive self-defence alters the political and politico-legal context that has until now given the humanitarian intervention debate its meaning and importance. Given this, together with a more general loosening of the strictures prohibiting or limiting the use of force, there is good cause for concern about the foundations of the post-1945 international order. The debate about humanitarian intervention can no longer abstract the tension between law and morality from a political arena that is facing such profound challenges.

<p>The main research question of this thesis is how do grand strategies form. Grand strategy is defined as a state's coherent and consistent pattern of behavior over a long period of time in search of an overarching goal. The political science literature usually explains the formation of grand strategies by using a planning (or design) model. In this dissertation, I use primary sources, interviews with former government officials, and historical scholarship to show that the formation of grand strategy is better understood using a model of emergent learning imported from the business world. My two case studies examine the formation of American grand strategy during the Cold War and the post-Cold War eras. The dissertation concludes that in both these strategic eras the dominating grand strategies were formed primarily by emergent learning rather than flowing from advanced designs.</p> / Dissertation

My thesis looks into the events leading up to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. In particular I investigate the intelligence regarding the presence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and how that intelligence was interpreted by the Bush administration. Furthermore, I look at how the case for war was presented by the Bush administration to the rest of the world and whether or not the administration’s reasoning was justified. In conclusion I assess the underlying motive for the war in Iraq and whether or not it was in the best interest of the United States of America.

Made available in DSpace on 2014-06-11T19:29:14Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2011-03-11Bitstream added on 2014-06-13T20:59:28Z : No. of bitstreams: 1 moreirajunior_h_me_mar.pdf: 691747 bytes, checksum: 20d9d8b1288eba2b3854524f2c68a130 (MD5) / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) / Principal economia mundial, líder político das principais instituições multilaterais e superpotência militar de alcance global, os Estados Unidos neste início de século XXI reúne todas as características para ser considerado o principal ator do sistema internacional. Nesse sentido, a compreensão das relações internacionais contemporâneas depende de uma compreensão das principais ações dos Estados Unidos no cenário internacional. Desde os anos do pós II Guerra, a política externa norte-americana adotou uma estratégia de construir a ordem internacional a partir da projeção de seus interesses nacionais. O objetivo dessa pesquisa foi identificar se a estratégia de segurança nacional do governo George W. Bush, focada na guerra contra o terrorismo, representa uma continuidade no projeto hegemônico norte-americano de construção da ordem internacional, ou se representa uma ruptura do mesmo, por desarticular o consenso da comunidade internacional existente em torno do projeto iniciado na segunda metade do século XX. A partir da revisão bibliográfica sobre o tema, da análise dos documentos dos neoconservadores e formuladores da estratégia de segurança do governo W. Bush, e do estudo de sua estratégia de segurança nacional, conhecida como Doutrina Bush, percebe-se que, por meios distintos, a política externa neoconservadora dos republicanos possui o mesmo objetivo da Grande Estratégia dos Estados Unidos prevalecente ao longo do século XX: o de modelar a ordem internacional de acordo com os interesses norte-americanos e assim consolidar sua primazia no cenário internacional / Greatest global economy, political leader of multilateral institutions and global military superpower, during the XXI century America has had all the characteristics to be considered the main actor of international system. Therefore, the understanding of contemporary international relations depends on understanding US world actions. Since Post War II, American foreign policy has developed a strategy to shape world order through America’s national interest. This research aims to investigate if the national security strategy of W. Bush’s administration, focused on war on terror, represents a continuity or a break in the American hegemonic project. The Bibliography revision, as well as the analysis of neoconservative documents for foreign policy and national defense, added by a study of the national security strategy, shows that Bush Doctrine has the same objectives of US Grand Strategy: to shape world order and support American primacy

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:28:19Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Bernardo Pereira de Lucena Rodrigues Guerra.pdf: 2065772 bytes, checksum: 8dc59fbda1134a24046d591f9f13a756 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2008-12-10 / The purpose of this study is to analyze the impact of the battle against Terrorism and Terror on the Human Rights International Law. From the constitution of a mentality arisen post-Second World War, with its fundamental characteristics, and the most relevant Human Rights international instruments, it is asserted that Terrorism and the battle against Terror have represented an enormous challenge not the say the biggest one to Human Rights International Law. On the twenty-first century, humanity has witnessed the rebirth of an ancient phenomenon, re-dimensioned on its characteristics and proportions: the globalized and trans-national Terrorism. There are basically two actors directly related to contemporary Terrorism: the Islamic fundamentalism and the United States from George W. Bush doctrine. Although there are many international conventions about Terrorism, its provisions are not sufficient to combat the phenomenon, mainly due to the absence of an accurate and clear definition of Terrorism. The risks of a unilateral anti-Terrorism politics are extremely oppressive for humanity, as they are based on Human Rights violations, torture, and arbitrary detention of individuals for indefinite time, vilification on the innocence presumption, on the adversary system and on full defense. Not to mention the use of lies and the figure of the objective enemy as domination means. Considering this scenario, it is indispensible that the fight against Terrorism operates accordingly to Human Rights International Law, with full respect to Human Rights fundamental core and to the nondiscrimination principle, through the adoption of a global strategy against Terrorism, based on five principles. Humanity truly and deeply needs to experience the freedom from want, the freedom from fear and the freedom to live in dignity / O presente estudo tem por objetivo analisar a forma pela qual o combate ao Terrorismo e ao Terror tem impactado o Direito Internacional dos Direitos Humanos. Partindo da configuração da mentalidade emergente pós- Segunda Guerra mundial, com suas características fundamentais, e dos principais instrumentos internacionais de proteção dos Direitos Humanos, verifica-se que o Terrorismo e a luta contra o Terror têm representado um grande desafio - senão o maior deles ao Direito Internacional dos Direitos Humanos. Acontece que, em pleno século XXI, a humanidade tem testemunhado o ressurgir de um fenômeno antigo, redimensionado em suas características e proporções: o Terrorismo globalizado e transnacional. São basicamente dois atores diretamente relacionados ao Terrorismo contemporâneo: o fundamentalismo islâmico e os Estados Unidos da doutrina George W. Bush. Não obstante haja uma série de convenções internacionais que disciplinem o Terrorismo, suas disposições não se afiguram como sendo suficientes para combatê-lo, principalmente pela ausência de uma definição clara e precisa de atos terroristas. São assaz gravosos para a humanidade os riscos de uma política unilateral de combate ao Terrorismo, baseada na violação de Direitos Humanos, na prática da tortura, na detenção arbitrária de pessoas por tempo indeterminado, no vilipêndio à presunção de inocência, aos princípios do contraditório e da ampla defesa. Ainda mais utilizando- se do uso da mentira e da figura do inimigo objetivo como forma de dominação. Para tanto, indispensável que o combate ao Terrorismo se opere sob a égide do Direito Internacional dos Direitos Humanos, no mais amplo respeito do núcleo inderrogável dos Direitos Humanos e do princípio da não discriminação, por meio da adoção de uma estratégia global de combate a esse fenômeno. Afinal de contas, a humanidade precisa, verdadeiramente, experienciar a liberdade livre de necessidades, a liberdade livre do medo e a liberdade de viver na mais plena dignidade

Orientador: Marcelo Fernandes de Oliveira / Banca: Virgílio Caixeta Arraes / Banca: Marcos Cordeiro Pires / Resumo: Principal economia mundial, líder político das principais instituições multilaterais e superpotência militar de alcance global, os Estados Unidos neste início de século XXI reúne todas as características para ser considerado o principal ator do sistema internacional. Nesse sentido, a compreensão das relações internacionais contemporâneas depende de uma compreensão das principais ações dos Estados Unidos no cenário internacional. Desde os anos do pós II Guerra, a política externa norte-americana adotou uma estratégia de construir a ordem internacional a partir da projeção de seus interesses nacionais. O objetivo dessa pesquisa foi identificar se a estratégia de segurança nacional do governo George W. Bush, focada na guerra contra o terrorismo, representa uma continuidade no projeto hegemônico norte-americano de construção da ordem internacional, ou se representa uma ruptura do mesmo, por desarticular o consenso da comunidade internacional existente em torno do projeto iniciado na segunda metade do século XX. A partir da revisão bibliográfica sobre o tema, da análise dos documentos dos neoconservadores e formuladores da estratégia de segurança do governo W. Bush, e do estudo de sua estratégia de segurança nacional, conhecida como Doutrina Bush, percebe-se que, por meios distintos, a política externa neoconservadora dos republicanos possui o mesmo objetivo da Grande Estratégia dos Estados Unidos prevalecente ao longo do século XX: o de modelar a ordem internacional de acordo com os interesses norte-americanos e assim consolidar sua primazia no cenário internacional / Abstract: Greatest global economy, political leader of multilateral institutions and global military superpower, during the XXI century America has had all the characteristics to be considered the main actor of international system. Therefore, the understanding of contemporary international relations depends on understanding US world actions. Since Post War II, American foreign policy has developed a strategy to shape world order through America's national interest. This research aims to investigate if the national security strategy of W. Bush's administration, focused on war on terror, represents a continuity or a break in the American hegemonic project. The Bibliography revision, as well as the analysis of neoconservative documents for foreign policy and national defense, added by a study of the national security strategy, shows that Bush Doctrine has the same objectives of US Grand Strategy: to shape world order and support American primacy / Mestre

<p>This dissertation examines the (critical) security effects that US Foreign Policy, and in particular the War on Terror (WOT), has had on East and Southeast Asia. This dissertation also articulates an innovative critical security approach that requires a post-structuralism based in Stephen K. White’s notion of “weak ontology,” and further demands a historically and geographically contingent method of immanent critique that allows us to grapple with the politics and ethics of actually occurring security logics. <em>As</em> a form of immanent critique rooted in a weak ontological understanding of critical security, this dissertation asks- and answers- the following question(s): What can a critical security analysis tell us about security/insecurity that a more conventional realist-based security analysis cannot? And more specifically, what can a critical security analysis tell us about the impact that the WOT has had on both state and non-state actors in East and Southeast Asia? In other words, <em>operating as an immanent critique</em> in the context of empirical examples in East and Southeast Asia, this dissertation demonstrates that forms of insecurity were constructed and/or abetted by the WOT itself, understood as a hegemonic security narrative, and that these forms of insecurity occurred in concert with the practice of traditional forms of state-centric security.</p> <p>This dissertation contributes to scholarship in two significant ways. First, it seeks to remedy the relative paucity of <em>critical</em> security analyses focused on East Asia and Southeast Asia. Second, this dissertation demonstrates- using the weak ontological immanent critique approach that it outlines- that a deconstructive critical security analysis based in post-structuralist commitments need not be anathema to engagements with pragmatic problems and security issues, nor should it have to preclude the possibility of enacting the politics and ethics that are required to theorize alternative security logics.</p> / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

冷戰結束，使得美國全球安全環境發生了歷史性的巨變，在中共快速崛起，區域軍力與經濟力的發展愈形失調之際；從北韓核武威脅、台海主權爭議，到區域民族主義、分離主義與恐怖組織的推波助瀾，將原已嚴峻的亞太情勢推向更為複雜的形勢。基於全般世局的變因與發展，誘發吾人從事國際關係研究的動機，除期望取得一般性國際關係理論與實際知識之外，更期望就小布希政府主政前後美國全球、亞太戰略的主要政策內容，去嘗試發現東亞戰略之理論依據與其關聯性，俾利於我國防政策與戰略發展之研究參考。 經研究發現，促成美國戰略轉變的根源係在不同時空的敵情威脅、全球政經安全情勢與美國內部的政治等因素上；故如何審時度勢，厚植實力，睥睨時局，也就成為美國主導戰略發展的關鍵。 研究也發現，美國東亞安全戰略是其全球、亞太戰略與整體外交、安全戰略設計的一環。冷戰結束後，歐洲呈現安全穩定發展，亞洲則因中共國力竄升與北韓核武危機等新的威脅，既影響東亞區域的平衡穩定，且衝擊到美國的國家利益，迫使美國必須對其東亞安全戰略作出因應的調整，以持續維持美國在世界的領導地位。 「九一一事件」後，促使美國戰略做了重大的改變，對其東亞安全戰略的建構，也針對不同的威脅來源與挑戰，做出國家安全戰略與區域安全戰略的調整和強化；而兩岸三邊關係也出現了若干的調整，從歷史之觀點分析，美國之台海政策基本係依戰略環境之需求而變遷，故台灣如何因應美國戰略之轉變，調整戰略思維，落實「有效嚇阻、防衛固守」戰略構想，達到「預防戰爭」、「維持台海穩定」、「保衛國土安全」之國防目的，實為當務之急。 / Due to the end of cold war, the role of the US in global security environment occurred historic changes. The issues of the North Korea nuclear weapon’s threat, the Taiwan’s sovereignty dispute, regional nationalism, separatism and terrorist groups surged the severe situation of Asia Pacific region more complicate. Owing to the overall variants and developments of the world, I am motivated to study international relation. I expect not only to consume general international relation theory and genuine knowledge but also to explore the theory’s basis and connections of East Asia strategy from those primary policies of the US global and Asia Pacific strategies before and after President George W. Bush assumed his office. This study may useful to the research and reference in our national defense policy and strategy development. Through the study, we discover the fountainheads of promoting the changes of the US strategy are the causes of enemy’s threat, global political & economic security situation and the US domestic politics. So, how to evaluate the world trend, build up immense capability and overwhelm the present posture of affairs become the key factors for the US to lead the strategic development. According to my study, we also discover the US’s East Asia security strategy is a part of its global, Asia Pacific strategies and strategic designs of overall diplomacy and security strategy. After cold war, the Europe develops safely and steadily. But in Asia, the unprecedented threats from the arisen PRC national power and North Korea nuclear weapon’s crisis affect the balance and steady of the East Asia, also pose great influence to the US interests. Thus, the US is forced to make certain adjustments on the East Asia security strategy for dealing with those aforementioned issues in order to maintain its leading status in the world. Post “September 11, terrorist attack”, the US made significant changes on its strategies. The US adjusted and strengthened its national and regional security strategies on East Asia security strategy construction and different threat resources and challenge. Also the US is induced to adjust trilateral relations with Taiwan and China. The US basic policy toward Taiwan Straits, analyzed from historical viewpoints, is changed by the strategic environment need. The ultimate work of Taiwan now, is to response the changes of the US strategy, adjust strategic thinking, fulfill the strategic concepts of “effective deterrence, solid defense” to achieve the national defense goals of “prevention of war”, “maintaining stabilization in Taiwan Straits” and “defending homeland”.

<p>Essay in Political Science, Advanced Course, by Christoffer Hagström</p><p>“The Bush Administration´s view on international cooperation and international</p><p>law and political-theoretical traditions influence on the administration´s foreign</p><p>policy”</p><p>Supervisor: Jan Olsson</p><p>The purpose of this paper is to analyze the American foreign policy, particularly with regard to</p><p>international cooperation and international law. The two following research-questions are used in</p><p>order to fulfil the purpose: (1) what is the Bush-administrations´s view of of the place for</p><p>international cooperation and international law in American foreign policy?, and (2) how does the</p><p>administration´s foreign policy correspond to dominant political-theoretical thought-traditions? The</p><p>traditions used are: liberalism, realism and neoconservatism. The sources of the study mostly</p><p>include literature and policy-documents. The author conducts qualitative and quantitative content</p><p>analysis of the Bush-administration´s policy document National Security Strategy of the United</p><p>States from March 2006. First the document is summarized based on different criteria followed by</p><p>categorizations of ideas connected with realism, liberalism and neoconservatism in the document. In</p><p>the quantative analysis value-words that are appropriate for the various traditions is chosen. The</p><p>frequency of those words can be seen as indications of the influence of the traditions in the thoughts</p><p>of the Bush-administration, but is mostly seen as a complement to the qualtative analysis. The main</p><p>conclusions of the paper are that the Bush-administration most often wish to act according to</p><p>international law and to cooperate with other actors internationally in the long run, it may even be</p><p>necessary. In the short run however, it may act outside the parameters of international organizations</p><p>and international law in order to accomplish foreign policy-goals. Matters related to the security of</p><p>the American state and people is considered much more important than international cooperation</p><p>and law. Liberalism seems to be the tradition that has most affected the Bush-administration´s</p><p>foreign policy. It is followed shortly thereafter by realism and neoconservatism seems to have had</p><p>the least influence on the the thought-traditions. All of the them has been active in the making of the</p><p>foreign policy.</p>

This paper offers a thorough examination of the United States 2002 National Security Strategy. The document is explored in its broader context, which allows us to understand it in its uniqueness and therefore offer sufficient interpretation. Special attention is devoted to the decision making process of the U.S. National Security Council due to primary responsibility of NSC for coordination of American security policy. Further attention is paid to three particular problem- related parts that are often considered to be the most revolutionary issues of this document. Preemption, unilateralism and U.S. support for the spread of democracy are examined in the broader context of the U.S. foreign policy tradition, American identity and historical development. On the basis of thorough research, the paper supposes that all major parts of this particular document are rather compatible with the development of U.S. security policy and they represent rather the outcome of developments than a fundamental change or reformulation of the strategy. The role of strategic documents is implicitly examined as well, while the study suggests that it should be perceived as a product of bureaucratic politics as summarized in a model by Graham Allison.