Suchergebnisse

AbstractThe aim of this article is to interrogate the concept of cultural genocide. The primary context examined is the Government of Canada's recent attempt at reconciliation through the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Drawing on the work of Audra Simpson (Mohawk), Glen Sean Coulthard (Yellowknives Dene), Kyle Powys Whyte (Potawatomi), Stephanie Lumsden (Hupa), and Luana Ross (Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, located at Flathead Indian Reservation in Montana), I argue that cultural genocide, like cultural rights, is depoliticized, thus limiting the political impact these concepts can invoke. Following Sylvia Wynter, I also argue that the aims of "truth and reconciliation" can sometimes serve to resituate the power of a liberal multicultural settler state, rather than seek systemic changes that would properly address the present-day implications of the residential school system. Finally, I argue that genocide and culture need to be repoliticized in order to support Indigenous futurity and sovereignty.

This book addresses the relationship between the 'liberal' values of Anglo-Saxon cultures and the way that they conduct themselves when they are fighting - or preparing to fight - wars. The United States and the United Kingdom are characterised by a consensus that their social and political arrangements are, in a very broad sense, 'liberal'. Liberalism is not pacifism; nor are liberals necessarily respectful of traditional prohibitions that have set out to moderate excessive violence. But liberals do seek to understand their violent actions as part of a wider project of defending or expanding.

The occurrence of a terrorist act frequently prompts governments to enact a wide array of preventive measures, some of which grate against human rights norms. Among the most problematic is targeted killing. Developments in drone technology have made drones the principal means by which the United States kills suspected terrorists and have allowed a dramatic expansion of this lethal measure's use. Since the killing of suspects outside a structured battlefield or within the context of an interstate war is, by its nature, a form of summary execution, it is not self-evidently reconcilable with the human right to life and therefore with the core values of a liberal state. Nevertheless, we conclude that reconciliation is at least theoretically possible if drone (or any other form of targeted) killing is restrained by a process with certain quasijudicial features in which the totality of the relevant international norms are consistently applied. The relevant norms are embedded in the law determining the legitimacy of recourse to force (what lawyers call the jus ad bellum ) and in the body of humanitarian law (essentially the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Rules), as well as in human rights law (above all, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and interpretations thereof by authoritative institutions). Without denying the existence of a number of gray areas, we attempt to illustrate the real-world implications of the normative framework we propose.

Part 1. A framework for thinking about US grand strategy. In search of a first-century grand strategy ; Power and liberty in US diplomatic history ; The new world disorder -- Part 2. Strategic courses of action. The balance of power and the democratic peace ; Barbarians, failed states, and stability operations -- Part 3. Regional application. The frontline : Europe and East Asia ; The opportunity : South Asia ; The quagmire : the Middle East ; The periphery : Latin America and Africa -- Part 4. The national security tool kit. Homeland defense ; Diplomacy and development ; Military, intelligence, and national security decision-making -- Conclusion.