Suchergebnisse

Is the liberal order in decline? Can we see evidence of that decline in the UN Security Council? Brian Frederking challenges the increasingly popular "decline" narrative by examining the practices of the Security Council in the decades since the end of the Cold War. Relying on both qualitative and quantitative data, Frederking shows that the council has consistently enforced liberal rules to resolve conflicts regarding war crimes, human rights, and democracy. What many interpret as a decline, he argues, is instead a process of renegotiation--the outcome of which remains a liberal order, but one that is less influenced than in the past by the US and its allies.

This book describes the rules governing international security decision-making and examines the different understandings of collective security in the post-Cold War world.

September 11 did not fundamentally change world politics. Instead, it exacerbated already existing tensions about how to implement post-cold war collective security rules. Using a rule-oriented constructivist theory of global security, I argue that the dominant post-cold war global security trend is the gradual construction of collective security rules, including rules punishing human rights abuses, terrorism, and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Using an interpretive method called dialogical analysis, I analyze the debate about intervention in Kosovo and argue that the recent conflict over intervention in Iraq revolves around similar claims about how to implement collective security rules. This analysis challenges arguments that September 11 ushered in a new era of world politics that necessarily justifies more aggressive, preemptive U.S. policies. (American Political Science Review / FUB)

ABSTRACTIs the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) a legitimate organization? Do the veto powers legitimately pursue international security, or do they protect their narrow national interests? One way to evaluate the legitimacy of the UNSC is through its agenda. Does it address the most significant conflicts in world politics? Or is it influenced by the national interests of the veto powers? This article addresses these questions with a dataset that includes the number of UNSC meetings held and resolutions passed on 40 conflicts from 1991 to 2013. This analysis provides evidence for the legitimacy of the UNSC—conflicts with more refugees and more deaths are significantly more likely to be on the agenda. The analysis does not support critics of the UNSC—the national interests of the veto powers, measured as arms sales to and trade with the conflict participants, do not significantly alter the UNSC agenda.