CIAO DATE: 9/01
From CIAO's Board: Commentary on the Terrorist Attacks against the United States
Robert Keohane
September 2001
Duke University
Dear all,
I don't know what Helen means by my hopes. Im pretty pessimistic. My point is simple: as in the Gulf War, we gain legitimacy for our military action by getting Security Council endorsement. That's pretty basic IR, I thought, consistent with Realism (look at Morgenthau) as well as with Institutionalism. No fancy theory here; just Inis Claudes collective legitimation (1967). My original letter made it a little more plain that we should only go to the UN if we had ascertained that we would get a Security Council resolution. In view of the fear of Russia and China of Islamic fundamentalism, my guess is that we could.
I appreciate Stephs
recognition that his comment on my short letter was unfair. I certainly
do not see the UN as central to the fight, any more than it was central to Korea
or the Gulf. But it was important in Korea and the Gulf, in both cases helpful
to the US cause; in 1950 or 1990 only a negligent statesman would have overlooked
that marginal but significant advantage.
Commentary
Stephen
M. Walt
Kirkpatrick Professor of International Affairs
John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
Bruce
Jentleson
Professor of Public Policy, Duke University
Director, Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy
Response by Etel SolingenSteven Weber
Professor of Political Science
University of California, Irvine
Response by Stephan Haggard
Professor, Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies
University of California, San Diego
Jack
Snyder
Steven Weber
Robert Keohane
Response by Stephan HaggardPeter Katzenstein
Response by Robert Keohane