Suchergebnisse

The decision to mount an armed foreign intervention is one of the most consequential that a US president can take. This book sets out to explain why and when presidents choose to use force. The book examines decisions to use force throughout the post-Cold War period, via flashpoints including the Balkans, the 'War on Terror' and the Middle East. It develops new explanations for variation in the use of force in US foreign policy by theorising and demonstrating the effects of the displacement and repression of ideas within and across different US presidential administrations, from George H.W. Bush to Donald Trump.

Examining the post-Cold War period, this book sets out to explain why and when US presidents choose to use force. It develops new explanations for variation in the use of force in US foreign policy by theorizing and demonstrating the effects of the displacement and repression of ideas within and across different US Presidential administrations.

This article provides an overview of the purpose, development and future of the Global Peace Index (GPI), a composite indicator of peacefulness at the national level. It explains why the concept of negative peace is well suited to being captured by a composite index, for both theoretical and statistical reasons. It examines how the GPI fits within the field of peace and conflict studies and how its methodological soundness has been assessed. This is done by looking at the history and structure of the GPI and showing how it relates to other definitions and indicators of peacefulness. The article then analyzes how the index is constructed with respect to its weighting, aggregation, and robustness. Some of the criticisms of the index are also explored, as well as the main proposed directions for the GPI evolution over the coming decade. Three main advantages of the index are identified as the ones that best reflect its novel input in peace and conflict studies. First, a composite indicator of peace helps to provide a more compelling narrative around the dynamics of peace between countries, to generate more interest in the peace and conflict field and to promote the concept of peace as a crucial driver of development. Second, the aggregation of multiple indicators of violence allows for the construction of a continuous measure of peacefulness with a less skewed distribution that can serve as the baseline for seeing which factors in other areas are correlated with peacefulness. Third, this composite measure of peacefulness highlights areas where data on aspects of negative peace are missing, incomplete, or not comparable across countries and drives the creation of new and novel indicators to fill these data gaps.

This brief response takes up some of the most significant points made in the previous essays and those which look likely to be most productive of future research, including the relationship between πίστις and ἀγαπή, the role of loyalty in trust, the importance of faith in the risen or ascended Christ, the connections between πίστις and Paul's domestic, political and military language, and the roles of narrative and mythology in John's Gospel. It also discusses briefly how πίστις is treated in early non‐testamental texts, and how, in some respects, meanings and practices of πίστις evolve between the second century and the fifth.

Our understanding of economic sanctions has progressed significantly over the past three decades. Sanctions scholars have done a remarkable job at using empirical anomalies to guide theoretical developments and then using these to guide the next iteration of data collection and empirical testing. Here, I argue that mounting empirical evidence suggests it is time to develop a new theoretical perspective. I identify a number of empirical results, some unpublished, that are hard to reconcile with existing theory, and I argue that there is enough consistency in these results to suggest which way to turn. (International Interactions (London)/ FUB)

Looking back over the past four decades one cannot fail to be impressed by the advances in the scientific study of conflict processes. One aspect of this rests simply with the growth in the number of people who consider themselves "peace scientists" and with the general acceptance that the field now enjoys. While individual studies continue to be challenged on methodological and epistemological grounds, as they should be, it is rare for someone to make general claims to the effect that international relations simply cannot be studied in a rigorous, systematic and reproducible (i.e. scientific) way. This was not always the case (see, for example, the collection of essays in Knorr and Rosenau, 1969). [Reprinted by permission; copyright Sage Publications Ltd.]