| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
069777
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
084305
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Over the last decade or so, growing attention has been paid to notions of preventive war. The most notorious case is the approach adopted by the Bush administration after the 9/11 attacks, but there has been a much wider debate. This article traces the lineaments of that debate, and the advocacy of a legitimate doctrine of preventive war, by those who are normally seen-rightly-as defenders of the rule of law and the just war tradition. This article argues that such attempts to justify some notions of preventive war are profoundly problematic and the attempt to make them fit within the rubric of the just war tradition is doomed to failure and potentially very damaging for the coherence of the tradition as an approach to the restraint of war.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
050822
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2002.
|
| Description |
xii, 617p.
|
| Standard Number |
0521575702
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 047825 | 327/BRO 047825 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
071105
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
121857
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
In previous periods, scholarship about international relations often drew on writing in theology, as well as more familiarly, history, law or philosophy. Some very influential scholars of international relations - think of Rheinhold Niebuhr, Martin Wight and Herbert Butterfield - were extremely widely read in theological topics, and their theological concerns influenced their understanding of international relations. This article looks at some contemporary writing with overtly theological concerns and asks how might contemporary international relations scholarship benefit from an engagement with contemporary philosophical and political theology.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
137604
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This paper develops three basic arguments in the context of this forum: that IR theory is genuinely pluralistic though those who see only apparent pluralism have a point. That discussions of pluralism in IR often run together the claims that pluralism is intrinsically valuable and that it is instrumentally valuable, and that these two claims need to be kept separate and examined more critically than they often are. And that pluralism is not Relativism and should not be assumed to be. Finally the paper suggests that IR theory might need to take on a still further aspect of pluralism if it wishes to properly understand the implications of plurality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
061165
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
073983
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2006.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article explores the various roles that rules play in international relations. The article responds to the current international situation in which rules are being contested by numerous agents in a range of issue areas. While rules, by their very nature, will result in conflicting interpretations in social and political realms, these disagreements at the international level have the added danger of undermining international order. The article explores the nature of rules, focusing on moral and legal dimensions as they operate at the international level. We then turn to an exploration of debates about legitimacy, the impact of technology on rules and rule-making, and the dilemmas of enforcement. We conclude that while rules are a necessary part of any just political order, the dilemmas generated at the global level necessitate careful consideration of the very nature of rules. The responses to the article that follow this one seek to explore some of these issues and their relevance to more specific international issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
069764
|
|
|
| 10 |
ID:
066630
|
|
|
| 11 |
ID:
107563
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2011.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This article revisits the arguments of John Vincent's influential 1986 book, Human rights and International Relations and situates them against the context both of the debates of his own time and the debates of the early twenty-first century. Vincent's arguments are assessed and evaluated in their own terms and compared and contrasted with dominant positions today. The arguments are then assessed in the light of two leading critical perspectives on human rights before considering a final criticism of the possibility and desirability of the current human rights regime in International Relations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|