| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
174238
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Revisiting the US-led counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan, we examine to what extent the concepts of legitimacy of the Taliban and the US counterinsurgents showed congruence with pre-existing Afghan notions of legitimacy. We move beyond dominant approaches of social contract theory and materialist legitimacy by using a threefold model of legitimacy to assess the different concepts of legitimacy. Both the Taliban and the US, we argue, diverged markedly from historically developed notions of legitimate rule. The article demonstrates that counterinsurgents need to be aware of and adapt to local norms. Moreover, we point towards relevant norms in the case of Afghanistan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
115214
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The introduction sets out the theme of the special issue. It introduces the topic of escalation by discussing the current state of the art in the literature and it outlines the set up of the remainder of the issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
115220
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The final contribution brings together the main findings of the individual articles, draws conclusions and formulates future research challenges in regards to understanding the escalation and de-escalation of irregular war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
083039
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This conclusion looks at the debate about the utility of force. It brings together the conclusions of the contributions in this special volume, linking them together with the positions in the debate and outlining further avenues for research.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
153043
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This contribution reflects on the state of strategic studies today and the criticism it has received in recent years, as being outdated and irrelevant. The authors formulate some premises for reinvigorating this field of inquiry by widening its scope and research agenda to do more justice to the wide variety of actors, perspectives and practices observable in the enterprise of strategy in our contemporary globalised world.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
083035
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article looks at the use of armed force in order to stop terrorist activity. There is little agreement among experts about the importance of the use of force in past counter-terrorism campaigns. Based on limited empirical investigation, it is indicated that police and judiciary measures have been much more frequently used than the military. Concerning the effectiveness of the use of force; there are few indications that it contributes to lessening terrorism. Rather the opposite is the case; the use of force makes things worse. It complies with the aim of terrorist organizations to provoke the state into overreacting. More research is warranted into the specific conditions under which force is used. It remains possible that in very specific circumstances, military force can make a difference
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
106320
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Are a hearts and minds approach, reliable intelligence and cultural awareness the most important ingredients for success in counter-insurgency, as present prescriptions claim? This article focuses on some of the notable non-kinetic aspects of counter-insurgency and aims to critically reflect on their role and importance. It argues that the hearts and minds ideas, the emphasis on intelligence and cultural awareness are often problematic both for their methodological foundations and empirical weight. The article closes by identifying avenues for further research.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
054177
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Sep-Oct 2004.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
106329
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Intelligence and strategic culture are two important research domains which have only recently been linked. This contribution brings together some of the insights of the contributions in this special issue and it attempts to formulate some challanges for future research.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 10 |
ID:
131762
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article revisits the security dilemma theory and its application to civil conflict. Based on a careful reading of existing studies, it exposes the deviations from the original theory developed in the 1950s and more recent amendments, which have substantially reduced the explanatory value of the theory. The article shows that when the original and the amended versions of the theory are applied to civil conflict, neither can explain the outbreak of armed conflict. While anarchy might be present as a precondition for the dilemma to operate, a previous history of violent interaction often leaves little room for misperception of intentions. Absent uncertainty about malign intentions toward the other group, the security dilemma theory loses relevance to explain the outbreak of civil conflict.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 11 |
ID:
153609
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This introduction to the double special issue on the theme of rebels and legitimacy aims to set out the parameters for the discussion. It looks at legitimacy as a concept and at legitimation as a process. To date most of the literature on legitimacy has focused on the state. However, rebel groups such as insurgents, terrorists, warlords and guerrillas have all had claims, and continue to claim, legitimacy as well. How and when are these rebels seen as legitimate actors? Existing suggestions of rebel legitimacy focus heavily on state models of social order and the social contract. This first contribution discusses how to conceptualize legitimacy and how to make it operational. A two-pronged approach, borrowing heavily from Max Weber, is proposed. Legitimacy is investigated based on beliefs and belief systems about what is considered legitimate. This is combined with practices whereby legitimacy is enacted, copied and emulated by the population the rebels claim to represent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 12 |
ID:
060011
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
London, Frank Cass, 2005.
|
| Description |
xii, 247p.
|
| Series |
Cass contemporary security studies series; no. 8
|
| Standard Number |
0415354625
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 049356 | 355.02/DUY 049356 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 13 |
ID:
148072
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Amidst recent Western military campaigns that have defied strategic logic and produced few, if any, tangible gains, the utility of force in contemporary conflicts is being questioned increasingly, yet very few useful answers are emerging. Unfortunately, policymakers have too limited an understanding of military affairs, and the officials and experts tasked to inform them often have vested interests or lack imagination. Whereas strategic studies scholars were once highly sought after to “think the unthinkable” and provide fresh ideas for policymakers, the field has since fallen on hard times and shows no signs of recovery. To resuscitate the field there is an urgent need for a fundamental re-evaluation of long-standing strategic concepts in light of present realities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 14 |
ID:
193169
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article explores the fashion/popularity of the idea that the exercise of cyber power is a form of warfare. Specifically, the article explains the recent decline of the cyber warfare fashion in academia and discusses its implications for strategic studies. To achieve this, we synthesize observations from previous studies with new quantitative and qualitative data. The article contributes to a growing body of literature by tracing and explaining the history of a particular theme within strategic studies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 15 |
ID:
075592
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
London, Routledge, 2007.
|
| Description |
xviii, 241p.
|
| Standard Number |
0415404576
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 052086 | 355.02/ANG 052086 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|