|
|
|
|
CIAO DATE: 04/04
Winter 2003 (Volume 28 Issue 3)
Trials and Errors: Principle and Pragmatism in Strategies of International Justice by Jack Snyder and Leslie Vinjamuri
Do international criminal tribunals prevent mass atrocities and other gross human rights abuses? According to Jack Snyder of ColumbiaUniversityand Leslie Vinjamuri of GeorgetownUniversity, recent tribunals such as those convened to prosecute war crimes in Yugoslavia and Central Africa "have utterly failed to deter subsequent abuses." In contrast, amnesties and truth commissions have succeeded largely because they solicit cooperation from powerful actors with vested interests in the outcome. Snyder and Vinjamuri maintain that preventing atrocities and strengthening respect for the law often require "striking politically expedient bargains that create effective coalitions to contain the power of potential perpetrators of abuses." This pragmatic approach, the authors argue, is key to the establishment of a norm-governed political order and effective administrative institutions . . .
Attack and Conquer? International Anarchy and the Offense-Defense-Deterrence Balance by Karen Ruth Adams
Karen Ruth Adams of LouisianaStateUniversitylays out the technological causes of offense, defense, and deterrence dominance and assesses the ability of these factors to explain attack and conquest among great powers and nuclear states from 1800 to 1997. According to Adams, "this technological argument is a significant predictor of both conquest and attack." She discusses the significance of her findings for many issues, including the likelihood of nuclear states attacking and conquering nonnuclear states as well as the spread of nuclear weapons . . .
Pathogens as Weapons: The International Security Implications of Biological Warfare by Gregory Koblentz
In the first of two articles on biological weapons and the bioterrorist threat, Gregory Koblentz of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology discusses the international security implications of biological weapons and the strategic consequences of their proliferation. Noting that previous studies have focused on assessing the potential lethality of these weapons, Koblentz expands his examination to include the role of biological weapons on four other key areas of concern: proliferation, deterrence, civil-military relations, and threat assessment. Koblentz looks at the influence of secrecy in all four areas and offers the following insight: not only does secrecy hinder verification; it also weakens deterrence, impedes civilian oversight, and complicates threat assessments . . .
A Double-Edged Sword: Globalization and Biosecurity by Kendall Hoyt and Stephen G. Brooks
Kendall Hoyt of Harvard University and Stephen Brooks of Dartmouth College examine the linkage between economic globalization and the threat of biological weapons. Contrary to those who argue that economic globalization increases vulnerability to a bioterrorist threat—and for this reason should be restricted—Hoyt and Brooks contend that globalization is a "double-edged sword" that has the potential to increase but also decrease levels of vulnerability—for example, by facilitating the development of vaccines. With this in mind, the authors propose the creation of an international biosecurity regime that can "harmonize regulations concerning biological research and commerce" while ensuring the continued globalization of biodefense . . .
Will Asia's Past Be It's Future? by Amitav Acharya
David Kang's spring 2003 article "Getting Asia Wrong: The Need for New Analytic Frameworks" is the subject of a commentary by Amitav Acharya of Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Acharya praises Kang for challenging the pessimists' view that Asia"is ripe for rivalry," but questions his use of evidence in suggesting that Asian states are more likely to bandwagon with Chinathan balance against it. In rebutting Acharya's criticisms, Kang reemphasizes his view that in studying Asia, international relations scholarship should be less Eurocentric and consider more carefully the Asian empirical anomalies . . .
Hierarchy, Balancing, and Empirical Puzzles in Asian International Relations by David C. Kang
David Kang's spring 2003 article "Getting Asia Wrong: The Need for New Analytic Frameworks" is the subject of a commentary by Amitav Acharya of Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Acharya praises Kang for challenging the pessimists' view that Asia"is ripe for rivalry," but questions his use of evidence in suggesting that Asian states are more likely to bandwagon with Chinathan balance against it. In rebutting Acharya's criticisms, Kang reemphasizes his view that in studying Asia, international relations scholarship should be less Eurocentric and consider more carefully the Asian empirical anomalies . . .
Fair Fights or Pointless Wars? by Kenneth N. Waltz
Columbia University's Kenneth Waltz comments on the recent debate in International Security on when democracies are likely to go to war . . .