No / This book provides a contemporary month-by-month analysis of events in Iraq since May 2005 and assesses how they impact on other countries including Afghanistan, Iran and the wider Middle East. The book charts a tumultuous period in the conflict, including a wider international perspective on the terrorist attacks in London and Sharm al Sheik, and an assessment of how US public opinion has changed as the war drags on. It brings together Paul Rogers' international security monthly briefings as published on the Oxford Research Group website between May 2005 - April 2006, and concludes with a commentary on the significance of the year's events, and an analysis of the current situation. This is the third ORG International Security Report. We have also published reports in 2004 and 2005.

no / Published 2017, © 2018.

No / As the ‘War on Terror’ evolves into the ‘Long War’ against Islamo-fascism, it demands an enduring commitment to ensuring the security of the United States and its allies. This policy is based on the requirement to maintain control in a fractured and unpredictable global environment, while paying little attention to the underlying issues that lead to insecurity. It is an approach that is manifestly failing, as the continuing problems in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate. Moreover, ‘control’ implies the maintenance of a global order that focuses on power remaining in the hands of a transnational elite community, principally focused on North America and Western Europe, but extending worldwide. This elite largely ignores socio-economic divisions and environmental constraints, and sees continuing stability as being best achieved by the maintenance of the status quo, using force when necessary. This collection of essays by Professor Paul Rogers argues that this post-Cold War security paradigm is fundamentally misguided and unsustainable. It concludes with two new essays on the need for a new conception of global security rooted in justice and emancipation. Global Security and the War on Terror will be essential reading for students and scholars of security studies, the Cold War, international relations and development studies.

<p>Abstract</p><p>The focus of this paper is to discuss ballistic missile defense (BMD) systems and their impact on international relations. I have a profound interest in the correlation between technological innovation/improvement and changes in international politics. I have therefore chosen the impact of BMD on global politics as the subject of discussion in my paper.</p><p>I begin the discussion by describing the technological segment of Ballistic Missile Defense systems, after which I indulge in the political aspect of it. There are three primary actors in the field: the United States of America, China, Russia. These three are the main focus of the debate, though not the only ones. During the Cold War it was the USA and Russia which pursued BMDS with most vigor, with China keeping a close eye on their progress as well as initiating its own BMD program. The emergence of the “New World Order” in the aftermath of the Cold War resulted in restructuring and re-organizing of the countries` strategic thinking, interests as well as defenses. The strongly criticized 2002 US withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty of 1972 became the latest milestone in the sphere of strategic defenses. US withdrawal from the Treaty paves way for a new kind of arms race between the three major powers of today: USA, China, Russia.</p><p>My conclusion is that US policy regarding strategic defenses is completely unacceptable. The US quest for “invulnerability”, by many experts seen as futile, is extremely dangerous and just another proof that USA continues to relentlessly pursue complete global military, political and economic domination. The international community, with China and Russia leading, must not ignore US strategic defense ambitions and it must act today. Tomorrow might be too late.</p>

As the ¿War on Terror¿ evolves into the ¿Long War¿ against Islamo-fascism, it demands an enduring commitment to ensuring the security of the United States and its allies. This policy is based on the requirement to maintain control in a fractured and unpredictable global environment, while paying little attention to the underlying issues that lead to insecurity. It is an approach that is manifestly failing, as the continuing problems in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate. Moreover, ¿control¿ implies the maintenance of a global order that focuses on power remaining in the hands of a transnational elite community, principally focused on North America and Western Europe, but extending worldwide. This elite largely ignores socio-economic divisions and environmental constraints, and sees continuing stability as being best achieved by the maintenance of the status quo, using force when necessary. This collection of essays by Professor Paul Rogers argues that this post-Cold War security paradigm is fundamentally misguided and unsustainable. It concludes with two new essays on the need for a new conception of global security rooted in justice and emancipation.

Yes / Are nuclear weapons still relevant to global security? Compared with the nuclear confrontation in the depths of the Cold War, nuclear weapons and deterrence appear to have lost their salience. Considering the conflicts in which the major powers engaged, the focus in strategic studies changed to counterinsurgency, counterterrorism, and subconventional conflict.2 Only recently, with the conflict in Ukraine and the increasingly confrontational relationship between the United States and China has this narrative come into question. The general perception on international security exhibits a strange paradox. On the one hand the US-led military interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq and other parts, the conflicts in the Middle East and Africa, the nuclearization of North Korea and the conflict between India and Pakistan among other regional security issues have given rise to a view that the modern world is less secure than ever, and we live in a world of chaos riven by unpredictable patterns of violence. By contrast, Steven Pinker has demonstrated the casualties from armed conflict are at their lowest point in human history, and interstate warfare has virtually ceased to exist as a phenomenon.3 The imminence of a global nuclear war in which at a minimum hundreds of millions of people would die appears to have dissipated. In some respects, it appears that war has become almost a phenomenon of the past. Most of the recent literature on nuclear weapons has focused on regional crises areas, such as South Asia (India and Pakistan) or the Korean peninsula.4 However, the modernization of arsenals by the nuclear powers, the integration of strategic conventional and nuclear weapons in strategic doctrines and the more confrontational dynamics in Great Power politics is cited as evidence that the risk of nuclear use is increasing. This paper contests the emerging narratives on an increased threat of nuclear conflict and considers the sources of insecurity in the contemporary period and in particular the risks of armed conflict between the United States, Russia, and China in order to assess the role of nuclear weapons in contemporary security.

Abstract The focus of this paper is to discuss ballistic missile defense (BMD) systems and their impact on international relations. I have a profound interest in the correlation between technological innovation/improvement and changes in international politics. I have therefore chosen the impact of BMD on global politics as the subject of discussion in my paper. I begin the discussion by describing the technological segment of Ballistic Missile Defense systems, after which I indulge in the political aspect of it. There are three primary actors in the field: the United States of America, China, Russia. These three are the main focus of the debate, though not the only ones. During the Cold War it was the USA and Russia which pursued BMDS with most vigor, with China keeping a close eye on their progress as well as initiating its own BMD program. The emergence of the “New World Order” in the aftermath of the Cold War resulted in restructuring and re-organizing of the countries` strategic thinking, interests as well as defenses. The strongly criticized 2002 US withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty of 1972 became the latest milestone in the sphere of strategic defenses. US withdrawal from the Treaty paves way for a new kind of arms race between the three major powers of today: USA, China, Russia. My conclusion is that US policy regarding strategic defenses is completely unacceptable. The US quest for “invulnerability”, by many experts seen as futile, is extremely dangerous and just another proof that USA continues to relentlessly pursue complete global military, political and economic domination. The international community, with China and Russia leading, must not ignore US strategic defense ambitions and it must act today. Tomorrow might be too late.

The diploma thesis practically and theoretically deals with the concept - privatization of security. The aim of the practical part is to compare the conception of private security companies in the Czech Republic and Slovakia. The comparison focuses on the factual data (number of PSC, employees, police forces, the amount of wages, the turnover), state regulation and mutual relation of public and private security providers. The findings of the practical part are applied to the theoretical concept of Rita Abrahamsen and Michael Williams - Theory of Security Assemblages. It is based on the claim that the privatization of security is part of a broader process of partial dismantling of the state and at the same time emerging "global assembly, which brings together national and global structures. The privatization of security is enshrined in both the social and the legal environment, and therefore the state itself can participate on its own dismantling by its acting. This is the case of the Czech Republic due to the absence of PSC's regulation, control mechanisms, minimum requirements for skilled employees PSC and the non-definition of the relationship between public and private security sector. It results in weakening the role of the Czech Republic as a guarantor of security. The aforementioned inaction...

'Losing Control combines a glimpse behind the security screens with sharp analysis of the real global insecurities - growing inequality and unsustainability.' The New Internationalist The attacks in New York and Washington on 11th September 2001 took most of the world by surprise. It showed that, for those living in the West, the threat of terrorist attack is now very real. Maintaining control of global security has become a matter of paramount importance to all Western governments. As the war against 'terrorism' widens into a war against particular states who may have played little part in the disaster, the idea that we can maintain global security by desperately clinging to our current security paradigm becomes increasingly improbable. In Losing Control, Paul Rogers calls for a radical re-thinking of western perceptions of security that embraces a willingness to address the core issues of global insecurity. This acclaimed book has already become an essential guide for anyone who wishes to understand the current crisis, and this updated edition contains a new preface and a new chapter which address the specific problems that have arisen since the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Drawing on examples from around the world, Rogers analyses the legacy of the Cold War's proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; the impact of human activity on the global ecosystem; the growth of hypercapitalism and resulting poverty and insecurity; the competition for energy resources and strategic minerals; biological warfare programmes; and paramilitary actions against centres of power. The new edition brings the whole analysis right up to date, arguing persuasively that the world's elite cannot maintain control and that a far more emancipatory and sustainable approach to global security has to be developed. / Also published in Japanese

This thesis is dealing with the analysis of American attributes of power which formed the USA as a superpower and has influenced the world politics in the 21st century. Hypothesis that the USA is still a superpower on the beginning of the 21st century was confirmed in six chapters. The first part of the diploma thesis presents theoretical and methodological bases, history and development of the United States and its rise to superpower status after the Second World War. The second part of the thesis, the last three chapters which are dealing with current American foreign policy and its relations with other important states and regions, proved the expected results of the hypothesis. Therefore the result of the thesis is that the United States still maintains its leading position of the global superpower despite of its relative political and economic weakness in the recent years.