Suchergebnisse

Examines the purposes of punishment and reveals that only some are understandable when a model of means-end rationality is used, suggesting that the element of the nonrational also plays an important role in international sanctions. (Abstract amended)

Much of the contemporary literature on the utility of international sanctions approaches the apparent riddle of why sanctions are embraced so eagerly when they are supposedly such an "ineffective" tool of statecraft by focusing on the instrumental and rational purposes of sanctions. As a result, one purpose that does not always lend itself to a rational means-end calculus—the purpose of punishment—tends to be overlooked or, more commonly, dismissed outright. This article explores punishment as both a useful and an effective purpose of international sanctions. It argues not only that sanctions should be distinguished from other forms of hurtful statecraft but also that they are a form of "international punishment" for wrongdoing, despite the difficulties of applying the term "punishment" in the context of international relations. The article then examines the purposes of punishment and reveals that only some are understandable when a model of means-end rationality is used, suggesting that the element of the nonrational also plays an important role in international sanctions. The argument is then applied to the case of U.S. sanctions imposed after the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan to demonstrate the different purposes of punishment at work in this case. The article concludes that just as we cannot understand punishment as a purposive human activity solely by reference to a rational model of a means to a clearly delineated end, so too we cannot entirely understand sanctions as a form of international punishment by an attachment to a rational model of policy behavior. However, some forms of punishment are exceedingly effective, and this may explain why sanctions continue to be a popular instrument of statecraft.

Recent literature on migration, international relations and foreign policy is reviewed in this article, stressing applications of global systems paradigms, studies of state entry and exit rules, and anatomies of domestic policy-setting processes on migration. After a concise assessment of the contemporary theory of global political economy, the paper argues for seeking midrange generalizations on the international relations of migration. It also suggests that analysis begin with the policy-setting processes of the state. Especially through the use of comparative perspectives available from domestic policymaking studies and from the field of international comparative public policy, this approach offers the opportunity to fix empirically the political roles of transnational social forces, which often present themselves as participants in domestic policy contests. Promising future directions in the study of state-to-state relations are also evaluated, with the anticipation that verifying regional or other intermediate patterns of world migration politics may contribute to more general theories of international political economy.

"April 1989." ; Shipping list no.: 89-268-P. ; Caption title. ; Mode of access: Internet.