Annual Report 2003
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Me, Myself & Mine: the Scope of Ownership
ME, MYSELF & MINE The Scope of Ownership _________________________________ PETER MARTIN JAWORSKI _________________________________ May, 2012 Committee: Fred Miller (Chair) David Shoemaker, Steven Wall, Daniel Jacobson, Neil Englehart ii ABSTRACT This dissertation is an attempt to defend the following thesis: The scope of legitimate ownership claims is much more narrow than what Lockean liberals have traditionally thought. Firstly, it is more narrow with respect to the particular claims that are justified by Locke’s labour- mixing argument. It is more difficult to come to own things in the first place. Secondly, it is more narrow with respect to the kinds of things that are open to the ownership relation. Some things, like persons and, maybe, cultural artifacts, are not open to the ownership relation but are, rather, fit objects for the guardianship, in the case of the former, and stewardship, in the case of the latter, relationship. To own, rather than merely have a property in, some object requires the liberty to smash, sell, or let spoil the object owned. Finally, the scope of ownership claims appear to be restricted over time. We can lose our claims in virtue of a change in us, a change that makes it the case that we are no longer responsible for some past action, like the morally interesting action required for justifying ownership claims. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Much of this work has benefited from too many people to list. However, a few warrant special mention. My committee, of course, deserves recognition. I’m grateful to Fred Miller for his many, many hours of pouring over my various manuscripts and rough drafts. -
Political Science 270 Mechanisms of International Relations
Political Science 270 Mechanisms of International Relations Hein Goemans Course Information: Harkness 337 Spring 2016 Office Hours: Wed. 2 { 3 PM 16:50{19:30 Wednesday [email protected] Meliora 203 The last fifteen years or so saw a major revolution in the social sciences. Instead of trying to discover and test grand \covering laws" that have universal validity and tremendous scope| think Newton's gravity or Einstein's relativity|the social sciences are in the process of switch- ing to more narrow and middle-range theories and explanations, often referred to as causal mechanisms. Recently, however, a new so-called \behavioral" approach { often but not always complementary { is currently sweeping the field. Since mechanisms remain the core theoretical building blocks in our field, we will continue to focus on them. In the bulk of this course students will be introduced to a range of such causal mechanisms with applications in international relations. Although these causal mechanisms can loosely be described in prose, explicit formalization { e.g., math { allows for a much deeper and richer understanding of the phenomena of study. In other words, formalization enables simplification and thus a better understanding of what is \really" going on. To set us on that path, we begin with some very basic rational choice fundamentals to introduce you to formal models in a rigorous way to show the power and potential of this approach. In other words, there will be some *gasp* Algebra. For much of the very brief but essential introduction to game theory we will use William Spaniel's Channel (http://gametheory101.com/courses/game-theory-101/, also on YouTube), as well as his cheap but very highly rated introductory book Game Theory 101: The Complete Textbook available at Amazon (http://www.amazon.com). -
The Hunt for Red October. Russia-Sweden Relations and a Missing Submarine
The Hunt for Red October. Russia-Sweden Relations and a Missing Submarine By Israel Shamir Region: Europe, Russia and FSU Global Research, August 01, 2015 Theme: History These days, Sweden is all agog. In the midst of the coldest summer in living history that deprived the Swedes of their normal sun-accumulating July routine, the country plunged into an exciting search for a Russian submarine in the Stockholm archipelago, and (as opposed to the previous rounds of this venerable Swedish maritime saga) this time they actually found the beast. Now we know for certain the Russians had intruded into Swedish waters! The Swedish admirals and the Guardian journalists probably feel themselves vindicated, as they always said so. Does it matter that the U-boat was sunk one hundred years ago, in 1916? Surely it does not, for the Russians are the same Russians and the sea is the same sea! I would continue in the same vein and have a lot of fun, but many innocent readers (especially on the internet) are not attuned for irony. If they read Swift’sModest Proposal, they’d call the police. For the benefit of the reader in whom is no guile (John 1:47), I’ll say it in plain words: the Swedish Navy and the great British newspaper Guardian made fools of themselves again, as they blamed the Russian president Putin for sending a submarine that turned out to be a one hundred year old war relic. | 1 The U-boat calledSom (Catfish) had been built in the US in 1901 for the Russian Navy, served in World War I and went down with all hands in 1916. -
Making Sense of State Socialization
Review of International Studies (2001), 27, 415–433 Copyright © British International Studies Association Making sense of state socialization KAI ALDERSON Abstract. At present, International Relations scholars use the metaphor of ‘state socializ- ation’ in mutually incompatible ways, embarking from very different starting points and arriving at a bewildering variety of destinations. There is no consensus on what state socializ- ation is, who it affects, or how it operates. This article seeks to chart this relatively unmapped concept by defining state socialization, differentiating it from similar concepts, and exploring what the study of state socialization can contribute to important and longstanding theoretical debates in the field of international relations. Introduction Norms are gaining ground in the study of International Relations.1 Not only are they the focus of extensive conceptual and theoretical work, but international norms are increasingly seen as weight-bearing elements of explanatory theories in issue- areas ranging from national security to the study of international organization.2 Regime theory continues to generate an extraordinarily fecund research pro- gramme,3 and its central insight—that relations among competitive sovereign states are shot through with norms of cooperation—links contemporary scholarship to long-standing reflections on the nature of the international.4 Constructivist scholars, for their part, argue that social norms offer a radical alternative to interest- and power-based accounts of international politics.5 1 As readily attested by the contributions to the recent fiftieth anniversary edition of International Organization, 52: 4 (1998). See, in particular, contributions by Peter J. Katzenstein, Robert O. Keohane and Stephen D. Krasner (esp. -
Adam Przeworski: Capitalism, Democracy and Science
ADAM PRZEWORSKI: CAPITALISM, DEMOCRACY AND SCIENCE Interview with Adam Przeworski conducted and edited by Gerardo L. Munck February 24, 2003, New York, New York Prepared for inclusion in Gerardo L. Munck and Richard Snyder, Passion, Craft, and Method in Comparative Politics. Training and Intellectual Formation: From Poland to the United States Q: How did you first get interested in studying politics? What impact did growing up in Poland have on your view of politics? A: Given that I was born in May of 1940, nine months after the Germans had invaded and occupied Poland, any political event, even a minor one, was immediately interpreted in terms of its consequences for one’s private life. All the news was about the war. I remember my family listening to clandestine radio broadcasts from the BBC when I was three or four years old. After the war, there was a period of uncertainty, and then the Soviet Union basically took over. Again, any rumbling in the Soviet Union, any conflict between the Soviet Union and the United States, was immediately seen in terms of its consequences for our life. It was like this for me until I first left for the US in 1961, right after the Berlin Wall went up. One’s everyday life was permeated with international, macro-political events. Everything was political. But I never thought of studying politics. For one thing, in Europe at that time there really was no political science. What we had was a German and Central European tradition that was called, translating from German, “theory of the state and law.” This included Carl Schmitt and Hans Kelsen, the kind of stuff that was taught normally at law schools. -
This Thesis Has Been Submitted in Fulfilment of the Requirements for a Postgraduate Degree (E.G
This thesis has been submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for a postgraduate degree (e.g. PhD, MPhil, DClinPsychol) at the University of Edinburgh. Please note the following terms and conditions of use: • This work is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, which are retained by the thesis author, unless otherwise stated. • A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. • This thesis cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the author. • The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the author. • When referring to this work, full bibliographic details including the author, title, awarding institution and date of the thesis must be given. A LeftLeft----LibertarianLibertarian Theory of Rights Arabella Millett Fisher PhD University of Edinburgh 2011 Contents Abstract....................................................................................................................... iv Acknowledgements.......................................................................................................v Declaration.................................................................................................................. vi Introduction..................................................................................................................1 Part I: A Libertarian Theory of Justice...................................................................11 -
Submarine Intrusions in Swedish Waters During the 1980S by Bengt Gustafsson
Parallel History Project on Cooperative Security (PHP) January 2011 E-Dossier, Submarine Intrusions in Swedish Waters During the 1980s www.php.isn.ethz.ch By Bengt Gustafsson Submarine Intrusions in Swedish Waters During the 1980s By Bengt Gustafsson The Truth is in the Eye of the Beholder Conspiracy theories, alternative explanations, and urban legends frequently play important roles in shaping public perceptions of high-profile events in history. Such alternative views are sometimes based on ideological preconceptions, the failure to appreciate the complexity of issues, or specific preconceptions about individuals, occupations, or institutions. In Sweden, the reception of what is known as ‘the submarine issue’ is a prominent example of such dynamics. The Swedish armed forces assert that from the middle of the 1970s until autumn 1992, foreign submarines repeatedly conducted intrusions far into Swedish territorial waters, including in the direction of the country’s naval bases. There was only one occasion on which the nation responsible for the incursion was successfully identified – when a Soviet Whiskey class submarine was discovered to have run aground in a bay just east of Karlskrona Naval Base in southern Sweden and was found on the morning of 28 October 1981. Journalists covered the event under headlines such as ‘Whiskey on the Rocks’. In Sweden, this event is known as the ‘U-137-incidenten’ *‘U-137 Incident’+ after the temporary designation given to submarine S-363 by the Soviet Union for the operation. In September of the previous year, the last Swedish destroyer in service, HMS Halland, had been deployed against a pair of submarines that were discovered in the outer Stockholm archipelago. -
Integrating Economic and Sociological Approaches to International Relations?
Integrating Economic and Sociological Approaches to International Relations? A Classic Puzzle and the Logic of Synthesis Tristan Volpe and Robert Adcock [email protected] ! [email protected] Department of Political Science The George Washington University Paper presented at panel “QMMR meets IR: Rethinking Classic and Contemporary Methodological Issues in International Relations,” co-sponsored by the Interpretive Methodologies and Methods Related Group and the Section for Qualitative and Multi-Method Research, Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington DC. September 5, 2010. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Abstract Our paper is motivated by the rationalism / constructivism contrast in the International Relations (IR) field. By reinterpreting this contrast we seek to redirect reflection about theoretical synthesis in the field. Our argument has four steps. First, we introduce a broader intellectual setting for the rationalism / constructivism contrast by situating it as a contemporary iteration of the economic / sociological contrast classically articulated throughout the history of the modern social sciences. Second, we pragmatically give concrete content to each side of this contrast in relation to recent IR. Engagement with Weber and Parsons helps us to subdivide the economic side into parametric vs. strategic variants, and the sociological in terms of traditional vs. value-rational action. Third, we argue that synthesis of economic and sociological approaches is both viable and desirable in concrete studies of strategic interaction. Fourth, to conclude, we compare our argument to recent efforts to promote analytic eclecticism in political science. " 1" Our paper is motivated by the rationalism / constructivism contrast in the contemporary International Relations (IR) field. By resituating this contrast we seek to redirect, perhaps even revitalize, reflection about theoretical synthesis in the field. -
The Culture of National Security the Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics Peter J
The Culture of National Security The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics Peter J. Katzenstein New York COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS 1996 Bibliographic Data Preface Contributors 1.Introduction: Alternative Perspectives on National Security Peter J. Katzenstein 2.Norms, Identity, and Culture in National Security Ronald L. Jepperson, Alexander Wendt, and Peter J. Katzenstein Part I. Norms and National Security 3.Status, Norms, and the Proliferation of Conventional Weapons: An Institutional Theory Approach Dana P. Eyre and Mark C. Suchman 4.Norms and Deterrence: The Nuclear and Chemical Weapons Taboos Richard Price and Nina Tannenwald http://www.ciaonet.org/book/katzenstein/index.html (1 of 2) [8/9/2002 1:46:59 PM] The Culture of National Security 5.Constructing Norms of Humanitarian Intervention Martha Finnemore 6.Culture and French Military Doctrine Before World War II Elizabeth Kier 7.Cultural Realism and Strategy in Maoist China Alastair Iain Johnston Part II. Identity and National Security 8. Identity, Norms, and National Security: The Soviet Foreign Policy Revolution and the End of the Cold War Robert G. Herman 9. Norms, Identity, and National Security in Germany and Japan Thomas U. Berger 10.Collective Identity in a Democratic Community: The Case of NATO Thomas Risse-Kappen 11.Identity and Alliances in the Middle East Michael N. Barnett Part III. Implications and Conclusions 12.Norms, Identity, and Their Limits: A Theoretical Reprise Paul Kowert and Jeffrey Legro 13.Conclusion: National Security in a Changing World Peter J. Katzenstein Pagination [an error occurred while processing this directive] http://www.ciaonet.org/book/katzenstein/index.html (2 of 2) [8/9/2002 1:46:59 PM] The Culture of National Security The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics, by Peter J. -
Finnish Security and European Security Policy
FINNISH SECURITY AND EUROPEAN SECURITY POLICY Stephen J. Blank September 27, 1996 ******* The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. This report is cleared for public release; distribution is unlimited. The author wishes to express his gratitude to the Institute for National Security Studies of the U.S. Air Force Academy which supported the research and interviews cited here. ******* Comments pertaining to this report are invited and should be forwarded to: Director, Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, PA 17013-5244. Copies of this report may be obtained from the Publications and Production Office by calling commercial (717) 245-4133, DSN 242-4133, FAX (717) 245-3820, or via the Internet at rummelr@carlisle- emh2.army.mil. ******* All 1995 and later Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) monographs are available on the Strategic Studies Institute Homepage for electronic dissemination. SSI's Homepage address is: http://carlisle-www.army. mil/usassi/ ii FOREWORD In 1995 Finland joined the European Union (EU). This action culminated several years of a fundamental reorientation of Finnish security policy as Finland moved from the neutrality imposed on it by the Soviet Union to a policy with a priority on European integration through the European Union. Finland, in joining the EU, has retained its independent defense and security posture, even as it seeks to strengthen its standing abroad and gain added leverage, through the EU, for dealing with Russia. -
Kränkning Till "Fantasifull" Observatör. Replik Till Bror Stefenson Och Göran Wallen
Från "säker" kränkning till "fantasifull" observatör. Replik till Bror Stefenson och Göran Wallen Ola Tunander ycket lite nytt framkommer i Bror Stefensons och Göran Wallens kritik M av min artikel om vetenskap och ubåtar i Forum navale (nr. 65). Både Stefenson och Wallen angriper mig för ting som jag aldrig har sagt, 1 och de utelämnar centrala frågor. Vad gäller signalspaningsbevisen har jag tidigare anslutit mig till Ubåtsutredningen 1995 och tar inte upp frågan här. När det gäller passagen av en undervattensfarkost vid Mälsten under ett fem timmar långt eldförbud den 13-14 oktober 1982 har jag behandlat den i detalj i mina böcker, och jag tvingas här helt enkelt att hänvisa till dem utan att gå in på sa ken närmare. Jag har vidare visat att centrala befälhavare inklusive ÖB vid flera tillfällen förordade eller gav order om eldtillstånd. De var villiga att ta risken med en allvarligt skadad eller t.o.m. sänkt farkost. Marinens interna utredning under amiral Gunnar Grandin skrev att eldförbuden infördes "utan kompe tens och kunskap" och att de kan ha bidragit till att ubåtarna undkom. 2 Även den politiska ledningen stödde eldtillstånd, medan förslag om eldförbud fram- Ola Tunander, f. 1948, fil dr, forskningsprofessor vid International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO). Deltog som civil expert i Ekeus ubåtsutredning Perspektiv på ubåtsfrågan: hanteringen av ubåtsfrågan politiskt och militärt SOU 2001: 85. Har skrivit ett flertal böcker om bl.a. geopolitik, militär strategi, säkerhetspolitik samt ubåtsfrågan i Sverige. 85 fördes av ett par amiraler.3 Jag har ställt mig frågan varför det var dessa amira ler som agerade med en sådan försiktighet, medan den sovjetiske ledaren Jurij Andropov uppmanade svenskarna att sänka ubåtarna så vi fick se vad som kom upp.4 I motsats till amiral Stefenson har jag redogjort för inte bara sovjetiska utan också för brittiska, amerikanska, västtyska och italienska dykarfarkoster och miniubåtar som förekommer i litteraturen. -
Maktens Historieskrivning Och Forskarens
Maktens historieskrivning och forskarens Ola Tunander ustafsson menar i sin replik i detta nummer av Forum navale att jag har G misstolkat dels en kommentar om Henry Kissinger i Lennart Ljungs dag bok, dels en kommentar som står att finna i en bok av den amerikanska speci alstyrkeofficeren Gary Stubblefield samt att jag skulle ha förvanskat en muntlig information från den danska amiralen J0rgen Bork. I dessa tre exempel tycker sig Gustafsson kunna läsa in en metodologisk svaghet. Om Gustafsson hade haft rätt hade det varit illa, men det hade inte berört kärnan i min argumenta tion som jag har presenterat i Forum navale. Gustafsson berör inte de bandin spelningar, signaler och bottenspår som är dokumenterade, och som pekar på en västlig eller amerikansk operation. Han berör inte dokumenterade uttalanden av ansvariga personer, tidigare försvarsministern Caspar Weinberger, 1 tidigare marinministern Keith Speed2, tidigare chefen för den militära underrättelse• tjänsten John Walker3 och tidigare svenske armechefen Nils Sköld, som jag har presenterat i både böcker och artiklar och som bekräftar västliga operationer. Gustafsson berör endast ting som kan vara nog så intressanta men som är mer perifera för min argumentation. Problemet är att han misstar sig även här. Ola Tunander; f. 1948, fil dr, forskningsprofessor vid International Peace Research Institute, Oslo (PRIO). Deltog som civil expert i Ekeus ubåtsutredning Perspektiv på ubåtsfrågan: hanteringen av ubåtsfrågan politiskt och militärt SOU 2001: 85. Har skrivit ett flertal böcker om bl. a. geopolitik, militär strategi, säkerhetspolitik samt ubåtsfrågan i Sverige. 52 Det ska erkännas att tolkning av texter, dokument och uttalanden inte alltid är enkelt, och inte minst gäller detta en värld som är i huvudsak hemlig.