Search results

A review essay on a book by Heikki Patomaki, The Political Economy of Global Security: War, Future Crises and Changes in Global Governance (London & New York: Routledge, 2008).

Hafner-Burton, E. ; Von Stein, J. ; Gartzke, E.: International organizations count. - S. 175-188 Dorussen, H. ; Ward, H.: International organizations and the Kantian peace: a network perspective. - S. 189-212 Hafner-Burton, E. ; Montgomery, A.: Power or plenty: how do international trade institutions affect economic sanctions? - S. 213-242 Von Stein, J.: The international law and politics of climate change: ratification of the United Nations Framework Convention and the Kyoto Protocol. - S. 243-268 Mansfield, E. D. ; Pevehouse, J. C.: Democratization and the varieties of international organizations. - S. 269-294 Hansen, H. E. ; McLaughlin Mitchell, S. ; Nemeth, S. C.: IO mediation of interstate conflicts: moving beyond the global versus regional dichotomy. - S. 295-325 Snidal, D.: Commentary on the special issue. - S. 326-333 Milner, H. V.: Commentary on the special issue. - S. 334-337

Approximately 80% of the volume of exports of major conventional weapons for the period 2003-2007 were accounted for by the five largest suppliers -- the USA, Russia, Germany, France and the UK. Although these five suppliers are likely to continue to account for an overwhelmingly large share of international arms transfers, concerns were expressed in 2007 regarding the export prospects for French and Russian major conventional weapons. Asia, Europe and the Middle East continued to be the largest recipient regions for the period 2003-2007. The largest recipient countries were China, India, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Greece and South Korea. However, 2007 gave the first signs of a potentially significant change among the largest recipients, with decreased deliveries to and orders by China. The largest suppliers to Asia and the Middle East will continue to engage in intense competition for export orders, with Libya and Saudi Arabia likely to become large recipients once again. SIPRI data show the volume of international arms transfers to South America in the period 2003-2007 to be 47% higher than in 1998-2002. Despite attention-grabbing headlines and some evidence of competitive behaviour (e.g. the nature and timing of acquisitions by Brazil, Columbia and Venezuela), it seems unlikely that South America is in the midst of a classically defined arms race. Acquisitions have been primarily motivated by efforts to replace or upgrade military inventories in order to maintain existing capabilities; to respond to predominantly domestic security threats; to strengthen ties with supplier governments; to enhance domestic arms industry capability; or to bolster regional or international profile. Arms suppliers meet the demand for weapons that a conflict creates for a number of reasons: to gain political and economic influence, to substitute for an interested external party's direct military presence and to meet the powerful economic pressures to sell arms. The international transfer of arms to conflict zones in Afghanistan and Sudan illustrates a number of related tendencies. First, UN arms embargoes imposed on armed non-state actors have thus far failed to stop their arms acquisitions. Second, major arms suppliers have been willing to show their support for the government in a conflict zone by directly supplying it with arms. Third, internationally sanctioned peacekeeping operations often struggle to obtain suitable arms and military equipment. Adapted from the source document.

What is peace? This basic question often appears in contemporary orthodoxy to have been settled in favor of the 'liberal peace.' Yet, this has, in many post-conflict settings, proved to create a 'virtual peace'-empty states & institutions which are ambivalent about everyday life. In this context peace is widely referred to but rarely defined. Though the concept of peace is often assumed to be normatively irreproachable, formative in the founding of the discipline, & central to the agendas of liberal states, it has rarely been directly approached as an area of study within IR. This essay endeavors to illustrate how developing accounts of peace helps chart the different theoretical & methodological contributions in IR, & the complex issues that then emerge. These include the pressing problem of how peace efforts become sustainable rather than merely inscribed in international & state-level diplomatic & military frameworks. This also raises issues related to an ontology of peace, culture, development, agency & structure, not just in terms of the representations of the world, & of peace, presented in the discipline, but in terms of the sovereignty of the discipline itself & its implications for everyday life. In an interdisciplinary & pluralist field of study -- as IR has now become -- concepts of peace & their sustainability are among those that are central. This raises the question of what the discipline is for, if not for peace? This paper explores such issues in the context of orthodox & critical IR theory, methods, & ontology, & offers some thoughts about the implications of placing peace at the center of IR. Figures. Adapted from the source document.