Suchergebnisse

What kind of future worlds do experts of international security envision? This paper studies the role of experts in DC's think tanks, a relatively small world socially and culturally highly homogeneous. It underlines the characteristics of this epistemic community that influence the way its analysts make claims about the future for security. The DC's marketplace of the future lacks diversity. The paradigms analysts use when they study international politics are very similar. Moreover, the range of issues they focus on is also relatively narrow. The paper highlights three main features of the relation between those who make claims about the future of security and those to whom these claims are addressed (mainly policymakers). First, it shows that, for epistemic but also for political reasons, the future imagined in think tanks is relatively stable and linear. This future also contributes to the continuity of political decisions. Second, the paper shows that think tanks are also "victims of groupthink", especially when they make claims about the future. Third, it underlines a paradox: scenarios and predictions create surprises. Claims about the future have a strong tunneling effect. They reinforce preexisting beliefs, create focal points, and operate as blinders when, inevitably, the future breaks away from its linear path. ; Les experts en matière de sécurité sont régulièrement sollicités pour donner leur avis sur le futur de la politique internationale. A Washington, le petit monde des think tanks est un véritable " marché du futur ". Son homogénéité culturelle et sociale est très forte, la diversité des idées qui s'y expriment très réduite. Dans ce marché des idées, le spectre de futurs possibles est dès lors très étroit. On note trois caractéristiques principales de cette énonciation du futur. Premièrement, pour des raisons épistémiques et politiques, le futur est linéaire, et ainsi conforte la stabilité et la continuité des décisions politiques. Deuxièmement, ces savoirs de l'expertise sont fortement ...

What kind of future worlds do experts of international security envision? This paper studies the role of experts in DC's think tanks, a relatively small world socially and culturally highly homogeneous. It underlines the characteristics of this epistemic community that influence the way its analysts make claims about the future for security. The DC's marketplace of the future lacks diversity. The paradigms analysts use when they study international politics are very similar. Moreover, the range of issues they focus on is also relatively narrow. The paper highlights three main features of the relation between those who make claims about the future of security and those to whom these claims are addressed (mainly policymakers). First, it shows that, for epistemic but also for political reasons, the future imagined in think tanks is relatively stable and linear. This future also contributes to the continuity of political decisions. Second, the paper shows that think tanks are also "victims of groupthink", especially when they make claims about the future. Third, it underlines a paradox: scenarios and predictions create surprises. Claims about the future have a strong tunneling effect. They reinforce preexisting beliefs, create focal points, and operate as blinders when, inevitably, the future breaks away from its linear path. ; Les experts en matière de sécurité sont régulièrement sollicités pour donner leur avis sur le futur de la politique internationale. A Washington, le petit monde des think tanks est un véritable " marché du futur ". Son homogénéité culturelle et sociale est très forte, la diversité des idées qui s'y expriment très réduite. Dans ce marché des idées, le spectre de futurs possibles est dès lors très étroit. On note trois caractéristiques principales de cette énonciation du futur. Premièrement, pour des raisons épistémiques et politiques, le futur est linéaire, et ainsi conforte la stabilité et la continuité des décisions politiques. Deuxièmement, ces savoirs de l'expertise sont fortement ...

What kind of future worlds do experts of international security envision? This paper studies the role of experts in DC's think tanks, a relatively small world socially and culturally highly homogeneous. It underlines the characteristics of this epistemic community that influence the way its analysts make claims about the future for security. The DC's marketplace of the future lacks diversity. The paradigms analysts use when they study international politics are very similar. Moreover, the range of issues they focus on is also relatively narrow. The paper highlights three main features of the relation between those who make claims about the future of security and those to whom these claims are addressed (mainly policymakers). First, it shows that, for epistemic but also for political reasons, the future imagined in think tanks is relatively stable and linear. This future also contributes to the continuity of political decisions. Second, the paper shows that think tanks are also "victims of groupthink", especially when they make claims about the future. Third, it underlines a paradox: scenarios and predictions create surprises. Claims about the future have a strong tunneling effect. They reinforce preexisting beliefs, create focal points, and operate as blinders when, inevitably, the future breaks away from its linear path. ; Les experts en matière de sécurité sont régulièrement sollicités pour donner leur avis sur le futur de la politique internationale. A Washington, le petit monde des think tanks est un véritable " marché du futur ". Son homogénéité culturelle et sociale est très forte, la diversité des idées qui s'y expriment très réduite. Dans ce marché des idées, le spectre de futurs possibles est dès lors très étroit. On note trois caractéristiques principales de cette énonciation du futur. Premièrement, pour des raisons épistémiques et politiques, le futur est linéaire, et ainsi conforte la stabilité et la continuité des décisions politiques. Deuxièmement, ces savoirs de l'expertise sont fortement ...

Circumstances in which immigrants or refugees are regarded as threatening to a country's political, economic, or social stability.

This article assesses the pros and cons of Amitai Etzioni's security first grand strategy. It argues that such a grand strategy is not much less ambitious than the Bush doctrine that it seeks to replace. The article is especially critical of Etzioni's proposals for forcible deproliferation. Rather than a security first grand strategy, the article defends a stability-first grand strategy that relies on the Westphalian state system, nuclear deterrence, the United Nations, and a U.S. grand strategy of measured restraint.

Stability operations in fragile states are likely to remain an important focus of the foreign policy of Western countries for the foreseeable future. The central question to consider when launching these operations is whether a particular type of intervention is more effective than others, and to determine what insights can be drawn from previous deployments in failed and fragile states. Capacity building is a lengthy process that requires a considerable amount of resources to produce lasting results. The progress achieved through military partnerships between countries should therefore be measured over decades rather than in months or years, as a lengthy engagement is more likely to produce lasting results in a weak or fragile state. Efforts at institution building in fragile states have been largely unsuccessful. Attempts to construct viable regimes in countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan have proven far more challenging than was originally assumed, and resistance from sub-national groups has been far more protracted than policymakers expected. Capacity building is especially difficult when it requires cooperation among multiple host nation agencies and collaboration among multiple assisting countries that consist of a mix of military, civilian, and NGO entities.