Search

The author argues that despite their different position in the international system, “national identity” is a useful analytical concept when examining the policies of Norway and the U.S. toward international security institutions. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the events of 9/11/01, there has been much discussion of the pores nature of US boarders and ports of entry. Considering the importance of the issue, there has been little academic debate regarding domestic and international policies to ensure port security, and even less academic research on the cooperation that such policies require and how cooperation is being advanced. We seek to remedy this deficiency.In recent years the US has taken the position as the lead actor in calling for more international cooperation and convergence of policies in how countries review containerized shipments and how they maintain security at ports. This paper asks if the US actions are motivated solely out of concern for securing its own ports, or if there is a genuine interest in cooperation for the sake of global security. Essentially, we will determine if the US' willingness to work with other countries is best represented by a power or interest based theory of cooperation. Additionally, we will determine the ramifications of the US' lead role, asking, if the US' reputation is hindering international cooperation on this important issue. Through the course of our research it will be necessary to review domestic policies and agency interaction, as well as the steps that are being taken on the international front. Finally, we hope to be able to address the implications of an international port security regime and to make some policy prescriptions. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although threat is central to international security, few works examine how statesmen manipulate external threats to satisfy their own security goals. This paper provides a theory of threat inflation, and investigates cases of American adventurism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Realists currently do not have a lot to say about terrorism.‘New terrorism’ and the asymmetric threats posed by it show the shortcomings of realism as states are being forced to react to non-state actors, such as terrorist organizations, in order to defend their own homeland. New threats to international security are posed by non-state actors through their use of global mechanisms as military weapons of destruction. As a result, past national strategies of deterrence and/or intervention have become outdated and inadequate in meeting the challenges from hardly visible threats which cross multiple boundaries. That is why it is necessary to renew realism in a way that is not contrary to its core assumptions and that would allow for it to take into account the role of non-state actors played in the realm of international security. This paper shows how realism fails to explain ‘new terrorism’ as a threat to international security. We examine current theories of asymmetric threats (that ‘new terrorism’ relies on for methods of attack) which currently are not applied to non-state actors. We examine the accuracy of current asymmetric threat theories. It is our contention that existing theories of asymmetric threats alone do not appropriately explain why the weak can defeat the strong. Therefore, we will examine terrorist attacks committed by Al Qaeda, using our theory of asymmetric threats that will stem from the synthesis of two existing theories. Finally, we will offer a modification to realism by suggesting that while states remain the dominant actor on the international arena, the role of the violent non-state actors must be acknowledged, eventually leading to policies effectively counteract and combat the asymmetric threats posed to international security. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]