Suchergebnisse

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

Examines the fundamentalist Islamic government; change from within, changing support for international terrorism, atomic weapons, and relations with post-Saddam Hussein Iraq; 5 articles. Contents: Continuous regime change from within, by Ali M. Ansari; Understanding Iran: getting past stereotypes and mythology, Mahmood Sariolghalam; Iran: confronting terrorism, by Gary Sick; Debating Iran's nuclear aspirations, by Shahram Chubin and Robert S. Litwak; Iran-Iraq relations after Saddam, by Anoushiravan Ehteshami.

Allied policy at the end of the Second World War reminds us that regime change can be justified in the aftermath of a just war. Michael Walzer argues that a more indirect approach to regime change can also be justified before (and instead of) a just war—indeed, the success of this approach would render war unnecessary and therefore unjust. And if we commit ourselves to that indirection, if we commit ourselves to the forceful containment of brutal regimes, to collective security, we may find that we can reach justice without the terrible destructiveness of war.