Suchergebnisse

Why has the United States, with its long-standing Liberal tradition, come to embrace the illiberal policies it has in recent years? The conventional wisdom is that al-Qaida's attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, and the subsequent war on terrorism have made America less Liberal. The logic of this argument is straightforward: interstate war has historically undermined domestic liberties, and the war on terrorism is causing the United States to follow this well-worn path. This explanation confronts a puzzle, however: illiberal U.S. policies-including the pursuit of global hegemony, launching of a preventive war, imposition of restrictions on civil liberties in the name of national security, and support for torture under certain circumstances-manifested themselves even before the September 11 terrorist attacks and were embraced across the political spectrum. Indeed, it is precisely American Liberalism that makes the United States so illiberal today. Under certain circumstances, Liberalism itself impels Americans to spread their values around the world and leads them to see the war on terrorism as a particularly deadly type of conflict that can be won only by employing illiberal tactics. Adapted from the source document.

When US President George W Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair argued in favour of war with Iraq, they offered a variety of reasons ranging from the now infamous claim that the country possessed weapons of mass destruction to the need to effect regime change. Such arguments were roundly criticized by opponents of the war, because the claims were, even if true, not regarded as legitimate reasons for war or because the factuality of the claims was rejected in the first place. In contrast to such lines of critique this article does not consider whether these claims could be considered accurate or sufficient. Rather, it uses Judith Butler's critique of ethical violence to elucidate the political implications of speaking and acting ethically. In particular, it explores the problematic of subjectivity and vulnerability and suggests that arguments for the war cannot effectively be contested logically, rather we must highlight the way in which they produce what they claim to name. Adapted from the source document.

Examines the dynamics of power relations & global civil cooperation within the non-state world & among non-state actors. Although civil organizations have played a key role in the democratization of local, national, & global societies, the power of civility has been structurally permeated with extremely anti-democratic undercurrents that threaten to undermine democratization. As a result, civil cooperation is moving toward global corporation & hegemonic corporativism. Special attention is given to the role of civility which is central to the dynamics of power in civil society. The World Social Forum is used as an example to examine emerging global civil cooperation & networking, especially the tendency for leadership of non-governmental organizations to move to more powerful positions at national & global levels which contradicts the goal of greater participation by "the people." There is a need to recognize the degree to which the leadership is "coagulating into what has many of the characteristics of a powerful transnational class." Suggestions are offered for ways to shift to an alternative politics. References. J. Lindroth