Global Rogues and Regional Orders examines the relationship between nuclear proliferation and regional order in East Asia and the Middle East, looking at what factors shape the perceptions and responses of relevant regional actors to North Korea and Iran, why some of these regional actors cooperate with the United States while others do not, and the consequences of shifting relations among these countries.
Why, despite similar North Korean crises within a decade, have East Asia countries responded differently to the U.S. approach toward North Korea, and with what consequences? This dissertation explores the contested nature of the North Korean threat in East Asia and examines its effects on the formation of national interests and the regional order. With an empirical focus on China, Japan, and South Korea, I argue that a region-wide pursuit of greater regional roles shaped the way in which the East Asian countries respond to the U.S. approach. By employing the concepts of role congruence and conflict, this dissertation identifies different pathways to regional order in East Asia. This project is based on a comparative analysis of the post-Cold War political dynamics surrounding the North Korean challenge. To assess the impact of role conceptions on the regional order, I compare the global, regional, and national contexts of post-Cold War North Korean crises, in particular the 1998 North Korean missile crisis and the second North Korean nuclear crisis. For this research, I conducted extensive fieldwork in China, Japan, and South Korea, gathering government documents, speeches, and other primary sources. I also utilized fiftyseven in-depth interviews with government officials and experts, along with a wide set of secondary literature, newspapers, and opinion pieces in each country. This dissertation demonstrates that regional role conceptions play a crucial role in shaping state behavior and influencing regional order, especially in alliance politics and regionalism. The findings from this research also suggest that the success of future global proliferation campaigns hinges on grasping the complexities of regional dynamics surrounding proliferators. Facilitating role congruence among regional actors can contribute to both the success of global proliferation policy and the enhancement of regional order. It is also important to avoid role conflict on the part of the United States: its traditional role as a regional stabilizer and its new role as a global enforcer of counterproliferation and anti-terror strategies. The way it reconciles the two roles and harmonizes global and regional priorities will shape the future course of the East Asian order
Great Powers and Regional Orders explores the manifestations of US power in the Persian Gulf and the limits of American influence. Significantly, this volume explores both the impact of US domestic politics and the role played by the region itself in terms of regional policy, order and stability. Well organized and logically structured, Markus Kaim and contributors have produced a new and unique contribution to the field that is applicable not only to US policy in the Persian Gulf but also to many other regional contexts. This will interest anyone working or researching within foreign policy, US and Middle Eastern politics.
The end of the cold war a decade ago has ushered in a greatly transformed international landscape. Instead of a pacific era of peace and political harmony, the world, and particularly the United States, has been confronted with a menacing challenge of rogue regimes whose propensity for violence is matched by their intentions to disrupt regional stability, contribute to outlaw behavior worldwide, or to possess weapons of mass destruction. Ruthless rogues also endanger American interests and citizens by their active or passive sponsorship of terrorism. If left unchecked, rogue states like Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya, and others will threaten innocent populations, undermine international norms, and spawn other pariah regimes, as the global order becomes tolerant of this political malignancy. As a major beneficiary of a global order of free markets, free trade, growing prosperity, and spreading democracy, the United States, the world's sole superpower, must take the lead in confronting rogue governments, even though our allies may balk from time to time. Specifically, American power should be used to enhance the credibility of our diplomacy. Law and diplomacy alone are unlikely to affect rogue dictators. They must be reinforced with power. Four broad policy options, which in most cases should be combined rather than implemented individually, can be applied: -Sanctions and isolation to achieve containment of and inflict economic damage on a rogue state -International courts and domestic prosecution to bring rogue criminals to justice -Shows of strength and armed interventions to coerce or eliminate rogue regimes -Support for opposition movements or covert operations to oust rogue figures Unless the United States addresses the challenge of rogue states with a combination of force and diplomacy, the new millennium will witness a widening of global anarchy, deteriorating progress toward economic development, and declining political reform. Dire consequences await the United States if it fails to react forcefully to international roguery.
Focused on a set of overlapping international orders of regional scope present in the Middle East and North Africa, this book argues that rules and primary institutions have sanctioned the foreign behavior of the sub-system’s international actors since 1945. The author avoids recent IR trends focused on narrow case studies, instead providing a comprehensive overview of the MENA’s regional politics. The normative content and evolution of multiple international orders are examined, constituting the intra-Arab order, the Arab-Israeli order and the Arab-Iranian order, as well as the expression of the global order in regional interactions. Drawing on Area Studies and English School and constructivist IR theories, the author argues that a plurality of overlapping regional orders have coexisted since 1945, not just one as is commonly suggested in the literature. Each of these orders is integrated by different participants and has developed its own differentiated norms and institutions setting parameters on legitimate behavior. This analytical proposal helps make sense of foreign relations otherwise labeled as incoherent. The book has wide appeal, accessible both to students wishing to learn about the politics, history and sociology of the Middle East, as well as to specialists seeking original research on the functioning of the MENA’s regional orders.
The Armenian question -- The origins of a solution -- The Rooseveltian solution -- The missionary solution -- The Wilsonian solution -- The American solution -- Dissolution.
This book develops the idea that since decolonisation, regional patterns of security have become more prominent in international politics. The authors combine an operational theory of regional security with an empirical application across the whole of the international system. Individual chapters cover Africa, the Balkans, CIS Europe, East Asia, EU Europe, the Middle East, North America, South America, and South Asia. The main focus is on the post-Cold War period, but the history of each regional security complex is traced back to its beginnings. By relating the regional dynamics of security to current debates about the global power structure, the authors unfold a distinctive interpretation of post-Cold War international security, avoiding both the extreme oversimplifications of the unipolar view, and the extreme deterritorialisations of many globalist visions of a new world disorder. Their framework brings out the radical diversity of security dynamics in different parts of the world.
During a television broadcast in 1959, US President Dwight D. Eisenhower remarked that "people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days our governments had better get out of the way and let them have it." At that very moment international peace organizations were bypassing national governments to create alternative institutions for the promotion of world peace and mounting the first serious challenge to the state-centered conduct of international relations. This study explores the emerging politics of peace, both as an ideal and as a pragmatic aspect of international relations, during the early cold war. It traces the myriad ways in which a broad spectrum of people involved in and affected by the cold war used, altered, and fought over a seemingly universal concept. These dynamic interactions involved three sets of global actors: cold war states, peace advocacy groups, and anti-colonial liberationists. These transnational networks challenged and eventually undermined the cold war order. They did so not just with reference to the United States, the Soviet Union, and Western Europe, but also by addressing the violence of national liberation movements in the Third World. As Petra Goedde shows in this work, deterritorializing the cold war reveals the fractures that emerged within each cold war camp, as activists both challenged their own governments over the right path toward global peace and challenged each other over the best strategy to achieve it. The Politics of Peace demonstrates that the scientists, journalists, publishers, feminists, and religious leaders who drove the international discourse on peace after World War II laid the groundwork for the eventual political transformation of the Cold War.
"Identifies and characterizes the most repressive states and singles out which are aggressive. Defines the actions constituting repression and proposes a method of measuring human rights violations, presenting an index of nation-state repressiveness. Offers a way to decide which repressive and rogue states are most deserving of strong policy attention"--Provided by publisher.
