Global Debate and the Limits of the Bush Doctrine

The "Bush Doctrine" asserting the right to preemptively attack states that support or harbor terrorists and pursue weapons of mass destruction (WMD) has bitterly divided world opinion. Many seemingly long-settled questions of international politics, especially involving the unilateral use of force, have been reopened. Although we are concerned about the implications of the Bush Doctrine, we do not agree that it fundamentally changes world politics as some have asserted. Instead, we argue that the global debate leading up to the war in Iraq signals widespread support for existing international norms. Most states continue to see force as a last resort, properly subject to multilateral control in all but the most urgent cases of imminent self-defense. The nature of American diplomatic maneuverings in the United Nations and the public statements of high-level officials suggest that even the United States continues to recognize the importance of these norms.     

Book Review

During George Bush's presidency the Cold War drew to a close and his administration triumphed in the Gulf War. Some viewed these events as a harbinger of a new world order. Basking in the success of the Gulf War, Bush's approval ratings soared, and prominent Democrats reconsidered challenging him in 1992. Foreign policy themes might have seemed a natural emphasis in campaign rhetoric. Yet, on the eve of the election, Bush abandoned efforts to rally the public with such appeals.

This article identifies primary metaphorical themes employed by Bush to define foreign policy reality. Bush's rhetoric was fundamentally ordered by the orientational metaphor of war. Other themes reinforced central premises of the war metaphor and reflected enduring premises of American exceptional ism. However, critical constraints blunted Bush's rhetorical intentions, and perhaps nullified constraints presidents traditionally have harnessed to define rhetorical situations to fit a preferred world view.

A disjuncture between rhetorical expectations and intentions beset the administration as the 1992 election approached. The electorate turned an anxious gaze to domestic politics and the condition of the economy. Furthermore, the war metaphor met a public demonstrably leery of U.S. meddling in the internal politics of other countries. Preference for the war metaphor, finally, represented a significant challenge to the political identity of Bush and the Republican Party.     

Presidential debates as focal points for campaign arguments

Abstract

This critical analysis of the 1988 Bush‐Dukakis presidential campaign is based on the premise that political debates can provide a framework for examining the arguments and issues within a political campaign that help shape potential voters’ perceptions about each candidate's character and fitness for office. The arguments presented within the debates are examined to determine the dominant themes each candidate developed as a way of describing himself and his opponent. Analysis of news reports of subsequent campaign speeches and polling information suggests which themes were accepted by the majority of voters.     

The bugle of justice: the romantic socialism of William Morris and George Orwell

This essay considers three possible applications of the concept of justice to the work of William Morris and George Orwell. It begins with a brief look at the treatment of criminals in Morris's utopian writing: a specific issue which anticipates some of the points of the modern restorative justice model. The bulk of the essay is devoted to the elaboration of four interconnected elements of the utopia of romantic socialism in Morris and Orwell: elements that provide the positive building blocks of the just society of human well‐being. The roles of the past, of nationality, of the natural environment, and of the demechanization of labor in the creation of the community of the future are considered. The final section, by drawing on several other specimens of socialist utopianism, examines the insufficiency of emotional ethical responses to injustice in producing a convincing version of ideal arrangements, and thereby highlights the value of the romantic visions of Morris and Orwell.     

A Problem Postponed: Britain and the Future of Austria-Hungary, 1914-18

Imperial security and the need to contain Germany drove British policy towards Austria-Hungary during the First World War more than its view of the Dual Monarchy itself, and shifts in the course of that policy reflected the changing fortunes of war. Given its strategic interests, Britain had less scope to sustain Austria as a great power than Paul W. Schroeder has argued. Those priorities also limited the role of specialists like R.W. Seton-Watson and Sir Lewis Namier to advising on the implementation of policies made by the war cabinet rather than shaping decisions themselves. Development of wartime policy towards Austria cast the priority Britain placed on Central and Eastern Europe into sharp relief, helping to explain trends in its approach to the region through the 1940s.     

"9·11时代"美国对外战略的危险"创新"

"9·11时代"美国对外战略的危险"创新"是:以"布什主义"为基本原则;以建立"新帝国"为最高目标;为实施"新帝国"战略而严重夸大外部威胁;以对"流氓国家"的"预防性战争"、"政权更迭"和"民主化改造"作为"新帝国"扩张基本手段。这些"创新"相互影响,其危险是:践踏国家主权平等、和平解决国际争端等当代国际法和国际关系基本原则,加剧国际军备竞赛和"安全困境",威胁世界和平与发展。     

The American Right and the Framing of 9/11

On September 11th, 2001, 2 hijacked airliners were crashed into the World Trade Center and a third into the Pentagon. The Bush administration's response, both in regard to civil liberties at home and the launching of military action abroad, has been the subject of considerable controversy. As we might expect, the Bush administration's framing of events met with acclaim among many on the American right But here, as elsewhere on the political spectrum, how to understand and react to 9/11 was also the subject of bitter dispute, a dispute that sheds new light on the ongoing arguments among American conservatives in the aftermath of the Cold War.     

交互性风险理论述评

弗莱彻以个案正义和社会福利的矛盾冲突为基础构建交互性模型和妥当性模型,并支持交互性模型以复兴侵权法的古典正义理论。     

American culpability: the Bush Administration and the Iranian nuclear impasse

Drawing on the memoirs of Hassan Rowhani, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator (2003–2005) and newly elected president, this paper considers the impact of the Bush Administration's Iran policy on the internal politics of the Islamic Republic and the dynamics of its nuclear negotiation strategy. It argues that the administration had a detrimental effect on international nuclear negotiations with Iran and should be considered at least partially responsible for the current nuclear impasse. Identifying three key areas, it focuses on the administration's rejection of constructive engagement with the relatively moderate government of President Mohammad Khatami; the negative influence of the USA during Iran's nuclear negotiations with the EU3; and the administration's refusal to provide the Iranians with confidence-building incentives, or countenance unconditional nuclear talks, despite a policy change in Washington that was ostensibly multilateralist and gave the impression of directly engaging with the Iranians.     

State crimes against democracy in the war on terror: applying the Nuremberg principles to the Bush–Cheney Administration

This article asks whether, in waging war in the Middle East, the Bush–Cheney Administration developed and executed a conspiracy comparable to the one for which Nazi leaders were tried, convicted, and executed at Nuremberg after World War II. To meet the Nuremberg standards, such a conspiracy must include efforts to subvert the constitutional order. Today, scholars refer to these actions as ‘state crimes against democracy’ (SCADs). After explicating the Nuremberg standards, the article applies them to the Bush–Cheney Administration's ‘war on terror’. The conclusion reached is that evidence of a SCAD-driven conspiracy is extensive and certainly adequate by the Nuremberg standards to warrant investigations and trials.