Search

Today, the United States faces a decision about how to deal with an environment in which its commitments exceed its capabilities and its power is overstretched. This paper argues that among several alternatives â€" divestment of resources, sustaining the status quo or transforming its power â€" the latter is a most desirable long-term alternative that can arrest and possibly reverse its overstretch and improve its relative power position. Is it, however, a viable alternative? This paper looks at all the cases when great powers (US, UK, and Russia) attempted to transform their power and analyzes causes of their success and failure. The finding is that institutional rigidity and a lack of fungible resources are the greatest obstacles to a successful transformation of power. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper makes explicit negative ramifications of conceptual confusion surrounding the notion of "terrorism", evaluates whether and to what extent existing literature on concept formation offers a solution to this problem and concludes by suggesting to shift our anlalytical focus from issues of conceptualization per se to constructing problem-driven definitions. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Understanding power usually comes from looking at it in the context of dynamic changes both in the nature of power and the nature of adversary and the context of interactions. Traditionally, power has been defined and measured by quantitative indicators of hard power, given conventional battlefield strategy and conventional weapons state adversaries are likely to use. Today, hard power still remains an important component of state power. Yet, in light of the changing nature of the international environment, and given that states find themselves increasingly reliant on their soft power internationally and constrained by limits of their extractive capacity domestically, hard power has become a less relevant tool for addressing asymmetric threats. The present paper suggests the need not only to recognize strengths offered by the increased complexity of the American power, but also to recognize its vulnerabilities. While the US is well-equipped to combat threats that come from states, different elements of its power have become increasingly vulnerable to attacks by terrorist organizations. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Understanding power comes from looking at it in the context of dynamic changes both in the nature of power and the nature of adversary and the context of interactions. Traditionally, power has been defined and measured by quantitative indicators of hard power, given conventional battlefield strategy and conventional weapons state adversaries are likely to use. Today, hard power still remains an important component of state power. Yet, in light of the changing nature of the international environment, and given that states find themselves increasingly reliant on their soft power internationally and constrained by limits of their extractive capacity domestically, hard power has become a less relevant tool for addressing asymmetric threats. The present paper suggests the need not only to recognize strengths offered by the increased complexity of the American power, but also to recognize its vulnerabilities. While the US is well-equipped to combat threats that come from states, different elements of its power have become increasingly vulnerable to attacks that come from violent, non-state actors (VNSAs). ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent decades, understanding terrorism and devising effective counter-terrorist strategies has become a top priority of national security decision-makers and the academia. Yet, at present there exists no agreed-upon definition of what constitutes terrorism. Consequently, scholars face a number of crippling substantive and methodological issues (conceptual stretching, indeterminate population boundaries, inability to generalize, biased inferences). This paper combines Giovanni Sartori's concept of the "ladder of generality" with the logic underlying Linnaean binomial taxonomy to offer a framework for thinking about constructing cases and populations for comparative research. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper relies on organizational and IR literatures to discuss the extent to which great powers are vulnerable to violent non-state actors. Hypotheses are tested qualitatively via a comparative case study of Imperial Russia and Great Britain. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper discusses factors critical for effectiveness of violent non-state actors (VNSAs). Building on existing IR and organizational literatures, this paper argues that VNSA effectiveness is best explained by a combination of two approaches. The first approach emphasizes importance of adequate human and material resources for VNSA effectiveness. The second approach emphasizes importance of adequate organization and strategy (or “resilience” of VNSAs). Despite proliferation of networked-VNSAs and network-centered arguments that emphasize importance of structure and strategy over resources, it appears that effective organizations possess a combination of both effective structure and strategy as well as adequate/relevant human and material resources. The argument draws on British experiences during the Indian Mutiny and Boer Wars, its encounters with Mediterranean piracy, and its efforts to combat the IRA in the 19th and 20th centuries. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

History demonstrates that actions of violent non-state actors are internationally consequential. Yet the question about the conditions under which violent non-state actors (VNSAs) can present a real challenge to great powers has been under-theorized. Pursuing a dual goal of theory building and theory testing, this paper conceptualizes “effectiveness” of violent non-state actors and discusses the extent to which great powers are vulnerable to violent non-state actors under different circumstances. Hypotheses are tested qualitatively and conclusions are based on examples drawn from two country case studies of Russia and Great Britain. Specifically, cases include medieval piracy, anti-imperial movements and mutinies, Fenians, the IRA, and revolutionary and anarchist movements. Findings show that VNSAs’ influence is more complex and extensive than suggested by mainstream IR literature. Specifically, depending on the extent of “slack” resources available to great powers, VNSAs can not only exacerbate great power decline but also can retard and arrest great power rise. ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]