|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
069777
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
079040
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2007.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
As debate continues over the conduct, the legality and the morality of the war in Iraq, this article addresses how and why Prime Minister Blair decided on the British road to war in Iraq. The article argues that Tony Blair was working within a mindset at both the domestic and international levels that meant he was predisposed to use military force against Iraq and indeed against other perceived threats to the West. His mindset arose, we will argue, through fear rather than arrogance, through the experiences of the past two decades as much as contemporary events, and this meant that he systematically over-estimated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. We postulate that Blair was not pressured into invading Iraq by President Bush. Rather, he believed that it was the right path for Britain to take, and that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was actually the logical outcome of the 'Doctrine of the International Community' outlined in his Chicago speech in 1999. We go on to make the claim that by concentrating on supporting the United States in its grand strategy, Tony Blair misunderstood the pattern of politics at home and perhaps more seriously of the 'threat' to the domestic security of the United Kingdom. This was not a danger from Iraqi WMD or even from 'foreign' terrorists as had happened on 9/11 but from home-grown suicide bombers, some of whom claimed to be inspired by opposition to Blair's wars. This was the blowback that mattered - and will continue to do so - for the UK
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
047174
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
London, Frank Cass, 2000.
|
| Description |
xiii, 213p.
|
| Standard Number |
0714650617
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 044961 | 327.17/JON 044961 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
176034
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Nicholas Rengger spent much of his career thinking and writing on the phenomenon of war. Eschewing any optimistic view that war could be abolished he also challenged the application of Just War theory to explain and justify the use of military force after the events of 9/11. His intellectual interactions with Jean Bethke Elshtain highlighted his growing unease with those in International Relations who sought to render palatable the use of torture, extraordinary rendition and technological ‘fixes’ in the pursuit of Western interests.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
078892
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2007.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In this roundtable, four scholars talk about different aspects of the future of the discipline. The occasion for the debate on 21 July 2006, before a large audience of invited academics and students, was the opening of a purpose-built new home for the Department of International Politics at the University of Wales, Aberystwyth - the world's first such department. Below are printed edited versions of the presentations of Professor Chris Brown (Head of the Department of International Relations at LSE, and former Chair of the British International Studies Association, BISA), Professor Caroline Kennedy-Pipe (then Chair of BISA, and Professor of International Relations at the University of Sheffield), Professor Andrew Linklater (the tenth Woodrow Wilson Professor at the Department of International Politics, University of Wales, Aberystwyth), and Professor Ken Booth (former Head of Department at the University of Wales, Aberystwyth, former Chair of BISA and E. H. Carr Professor).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
060489
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Jan 13, 2005.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
We begin by briefly surveying and discussing approaches to the study of Russian foreign policy after the Cold War. These largely descriptive approaches fail to provide much purchase on the new circumstances obtaining after 9/11. Instead we consider the ‘war on terror’ from a broadly constructivist perspective as a new international paradigm. We describe its main features, and then consider its implications for Russian-American relations in three policy areas: Chechnya, neighbouring states, and internal security. We find in these areas both opportunities and dilemmas for Russian foreign policy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
001660
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
London, Arnold, 1998.
|
| Description |
x, 230p.
|
| Standard Number |
0340652055
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 041286 | 327.47/KEN 041286 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
084299
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article frames the discussion of the 'state of war' in this issue of International Affairs. Beginning by noting the continued recurrence of 'traditional' modes of war along side so-called 'new wars' and calling to aid Rousseau's brutal satire of 1756, The state of war, the article offers a discussion of three 'responses' to the reality of war in international relations-the heroic response, the realpolitik response and the compassionate response-and argues that a synthesis between them characterizes the general approach to war in any historical period. It then considers how the contemporary synthesis might be viewed and offers thoughts on the articles in this issue in the light of this suggestion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
165389
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Following the UK defence secretary’s announcement in September 2018 that the Ministry of Defence is to devise a Defence Arctic Strategy, Duncan Depledge, Klaus Dodds and Caroline Kennedy-Pipe look back on how UK defence has engaged with the Arctic over the past two decades and draw attention to the shift in focus from climate change to hard security threats. They analyse what this means for the development of national Arctic policy in general, including the potential for divergence with other stakeholders such as the Foreign Office and the Scottish government. They conclude by considering how UK Arctic policy might change after Brexit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 10 |
ID:
051563
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|