Suchergebnisse

The nature and role of paid foreign forces have altered considerably in the late twentieth century. Military companies' - private firms providing active military assistance, in some cases involving combat - have exploited the increasing reluctance of Western governments and multilateral organizations to intervene directly in civil conflicts. As a result, their influence has increased. David Shearer argues that the debate over the use of these companies - notably the South African firm Executive Outcomes (EO) - has not, however, kept pace with their development. Companies such as EO are widely seen as merely modern-day mercenary outfits exploiting violence for private gain. Shearer contends that the need to recast the debate on military companies is urgent. These companies are not a passing phenomenon; if anything, their influence and activities are set to increase in the next century as Western military retrenchment continues. Efforts to restrict the activities of military companies by drafting international or domestic legislation have to date been ineffective, and are likely to remain so. This paper - the first detailed analysis of the private military sector - argues that dismissing it as an unpleasant aberration is misleading and unhelpful. Military companies can claim success in achieving immediate strategic objectives. The author cites two examples at length - EO's operations in Angola in 1993-94, and in Sierra Leone in 1995-96 - and suggests that military force can stabilize a crisis. Engagement with military companies may create possibilities for them to complement international and regional peacekeeping efforts. Traditional UN peacekeeping is flawed in terms of its speed of mobilization and lines of authority, and is hampered by interference from contributing countries. The private sector may avoid many of these difficulties. Private Armies and Military Intervention concludes that transparency of operations and business relationships is a crucial first step towards ensuring the accountability of the private military sector. However, a coherent policy towards military companies has yet to be formulated. Current frameworks under international law are insufficient and inappropriate. Characterizing the activities of military companies as mercenary' offers few useful means to tackle the issue within a framework of international policy. What is required is a more pragmatic approach that assesses the effectiveness of - and engages with - private armies.

We study the 420 US drone strikes in Pakistan from 2006-2016, isolating causal effects on terrorism, anti-US sentiment, and radicalization via an instrumental variable strategy based on wind. Drone strikes are suggested to encourage terrorism in Pakistan, bearing responsibility for 16 percent of all attacks or 2,964 terror deaths. Exploring mechanisms, we distinguish between insiders (members of terrorist organizations) and outsiders (the Pakistani populace). Analyzing data from a leading Pakistani newspaper, anti-US protests, and Google searches, drone strikes appear to increase anti-US sentiment and radicalization: Outsiders seem to sympathize with insiders because of drone strikes.

While scholars have made many claims about US military interventions, they have not come to a consensus on main trends and consequences. This article introduces a new, comprehensive dataset of all US military interventions since the country's founding, alongside over 200 variables that allow scholars to evaluate theoretical propositions on drivers and outcomes of intervention. It compares the new Military Intervention Project (MIP) dataset to the current leading dataset, the Militarized Interstate Disputes (MID). In sum, MIP doubles the universe of cases, integrates a range of military intervention definitions and sources, expands the timeline of analysis, and offers more transparency of sourcing through historically-documented case narratives of every US military intervention included in the dataset. According to MIP, the US has undertaken almost 400 military interventions since 1776, with half of these operations undertaken between 1950 and 2019. Over 25% of them have occurred in the post-Cold War period.

While scholars have made many claims about US military interventions, they have not come to a consensus on main trends and consequences. This article introduces a new, comprehensive dataset of all US military interventions since the country's founding, alongside over 200 variables that allow scholars to evaluate theoretical propositions on drivers and outcomes of intervention. It compares the new Military Intervention Project (MIP) dataset to the current leading dataset, the Militarized Interstate Disputes (MID). In sum, MIP doubles the universe of cases, integrates a range of military intervention definitions and sources, expands the timeline of analysis, and offers more transparency of sourcing through historically-documented case narratives of every US military intervention included in the dataset. According to MIP, the US has undertaken almost 400 military interventions since 1776, with half of these operations undertaken between 1950 and 2019. Over 25% of them have occurred in the post-Cold War period.

This paper studies the relations between Afghanistan and the Soviet Union in history to evaluate the importance of Afghanistan for the USSR and the Soviet decision to intervene military in 1979. (DÜI-Gbh)

Draws upon personal experiences during the 1999 Kosovo air campaign to discuss the probable characteristics of future military operations. The capacity for advanced technologies to provide new ways to conduct war is discussed. The US is currently the only nation with the military capability to project power globally, therefore, most interventions to protect people will be carried out by coalitions rather than individual countries. The increasing reluctance to intervene is examined, along with the parallel expansion of a human rights culture, & the domestic politicization of war. An analysis of the Kosovo air campaign points out that it was an intervention carried out by 19 democratic countries, without UN approval, for the purpose of halting massive human rights abuses. The campaign's remarkable success; criticisms of it by "military experts"; & the effect of public scrutiny are discussed. Examination of the implications of Kosovo for the direction of future warfare suggests that there will a revitalized focus on conflict prevention, & increasing reluctance to intervene militarily to save human lives, except in response to terrorist attacks. J. Lindroth

AbstractSuppose that state A attacks state D without warrant. The ensuing military conflict threatens international peace and security. State D (I assume) has a justification for defending itself by means of military force. Do third parties have a justification for intervening in that conflict by such means? To international public lawyers, the well-rehearsed and obvious answer is "yes." Threats to international peace and security provide one of two exceptions to the legal and moral prohibition (as set out in Article 2[4] of the UN Charter) on using force as a means for resolving interstate disputes. Just war theorists are not as verdictive. Compared to the ethics of humanitarian intervention and the ethics of national self-defense, the ethics of third-party military involvement in interstate conflicts remains underdeveloped in contemporary just war theory. This essay begins to fill that gap. I argue that to defend such interventions is tantamount to defending preventive military force, deterrent military force, and the resort to force in more cases than standardly thought. I then provide an account and limited defense of the deterrence argument. I show that deterrence is morally justified in relatively few cases and examine two problems with the argument: deterrence failures and the level of uncertainty under which leaders who use deterrent force operate. I conclude that we should take seriously the possibility that nonintervention, construed as the rejection of the direct use of military force, is the morally correct response to the most serious threats to international peace and security.