Suchergebnisse

Although George W. Bush invoked "regime change" as one of his justifications for a US invasion of Iraq, the concept itself has a long history dating back to the time of Julius Caesar. Today the concept remains bound up in a "good vs evil" binarism, although policy analysts also consider more nuanced aspects such as the designation of states as "viable," "failed," "weak," etc, & what it would take to make a state "successful." Strategies for peaceful regime change are examined according to a framework suggested by the work of Inis Claude. Claude hold that states could be bolstered through building "community strength, plural politics, consensus, legitimacy, & resilience.". K. Coddon

Examines military intervention, assassination, military occupation, and US-supported change of government in Iran in 1953; 4 articles. Contents: What justifies regime change? by Pascal Boniface; When to target leaders, by Catherine Lotrionte; Military occupation: legally ensuring a lasting peace, by David B. Rivkin Jr. and Darin R. Bartram; Lessons from Iran, by Barry Rubin.

Argues that regime change alone is not a just cause for war & presents a form of collective security called "force-short-of-war" as a way to achieve such political change. After discussing the WWII & (hypothetical) Rwandan occasions for justified regime change & whether there had been any such Iraqi occasion, it is contended that while aggression & massacre are legitimate causes of war, the existence of regimes capable of such requires a different response. The containment system, a form of collective security, following the 1991 Gulf War is viewed as an instance of the use of force-short-of-war, albeit one that failed to prevent the 2003 war. In this light, a theory of just & unjust uses of force, which is closely connected to prevention & would likely be more permissive than just war theory, is considered in terms of whether its permissions extend to regime change or democratization. This kind of use of force is compared to the classic principle of nonintervention before examining the limits on when & how it can be used. Most important, as in the conduct of war, force-short-of-war should be limited in a manner that shields civilians. Although arguing that force-short-of-war does not permit forcible democratization, the idea of a "politics short of force" involving nongovernmental organizations is suggested as a means of achieving regime change. D. Edelman