Advertisement

Abstract

This book provides a multidisciplinary assessment of the concept of self-defense with the purpose of exposing the relationship between power politics and international law. The dual lenses of international relations theory and international law are employed to exhibit the need to combine theory and practice, law and politics, in any assessment of world politics. Any work that neglects this link is doomed to be flawed or incomplete. This study uses the case study of the US use of force in Iraq and Afghanistan to demonstrate the relationship between law and politics in the backdrop of unipolarity.

Keywords

Foreign Policy United Nations International Relation Security Council Rome Statute 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Richard Falk, The Great Terror War (New York: Olive Branch Press, 2003), p. 83.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Steven R. Ratner, Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello after September 11, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 96, No. 4, October 2002, pp. 905–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 4.
    Richard Falk, The Great Terror War (New York: Olive Branch Press, 2003), p. 179.Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    Quincy Wright, “International Law and the Balance of Power,” The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 37, No. 1, Jan 1943, pp. 97–103, p. 99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 9.
    According to Christopher Layne, “Grand strategy is a three-step process: determining a state’s vital security interests; identifying the threats to those interests; and deciding how best to employ the state’s political, military, and economic resources to protect those interests.” Christopher Layne, “From Preponderance to Offshore Balancing: America’s Future Grand Strategy,” International Security, 22, no. 1 (Summer 1997): 86–124, at 88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 10.
    Robert J. Art, “Geopolitics Updated: The Strategy of Selective Engagement,” International Security, Vol. 23, No. 3, Winter 1998/1999, pp. 79–113. Robert Art suggests seven alternative strategies namely dominion, global collective security, regional collective security, cooperative security, containment, isolationism and selective engagement of which the US chooses the strategy of dominion.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 14.
    Benjamin Barber, Fear’s Empire: War, Terrorism and Democracy (W.W. Norton & Company, 2004), pp. 37–38.Google Scholar
  8. 15.
    Stephen G. Brooks and William C. Wohlforth, “American Primacy in Perspective,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 81 (4), July/August 2002, pp. 20–33, p. 21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 16.
    Krieger, David (2003) “The Bush Administration’s Assault on International Law,” in Richard Falk and David Krieger (eds), The Iraq Crisis and International Law: A Briefing Booklet, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, January 2003, p. 13.Google Scholar
  10. 18.
    Thomas M. Franck, “Is Anything ‘Left’ in International Law?” Unbound, Vol. 1, 59, 2005, pp. 59–63, p. 61.Google Scholar
  11. 19.
    Thomas M. Franck, “The Power of Legitimacy and the Legitimacy of Power: International Law in An Age of Power Disequilibrium,” The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 100, No. 1, January 2006, pp. 88–106, p. 98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 22.
    Benjamin Barber, Fear’s Empire: War, Terrorism and Democracy (W.W. Norton & Company, 2004), p. 28.Google Scholar
  13. 25.
    Arend, Anthony Clark and Robert J. Beck, International Law and the Use of Force. (Routledge Publishers, 1993), p. 102.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Ruchi Anand 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ruchi Anand
    • 1
  1. 1.American Graduate School of International Relations and DiplomacyParisFrance

Personalised recommendations