You may have to Search all our reviewed books and magazines, click the sign up button below to create a free account.
This book examines why some attempts to strong-arm an adversary work while others do not.
During the Cold War, deterrence theory was the cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy. Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, however, popular wisdom dictated that terrorist organizations and radical fanatics could not be deterred—and governments shifted their attention to combating terrorism rather than deterring it. This book challenges that prevailing assumption and offers insight as to when and where terrorism can be deterred. It first identifies how and where theories of deterrence apply to counterterrorism, highlighting how traditional and less-traditional notions of deterrence can be applied to evolving terrorist threats. It then applies these theoretical propositions to real-world threats to establish the role deterrence has within a dynamic counterterrorism strategy—and to identify how metrics can be created for measuring the success of terrorism deterrence strategies. In sum, it provides a foundation for developing effective counterterrorism policies to help states contain or curtail the terrorism challenges they face.
In light of technological advances and multiplying irregular conflicts, conventional wisdom suggests airpower as the ideal, low-cost means of conducting modern warfare—and the air control method adopted by the British between the two world wars seems to back this up. Swift and precise targeting from above was considered more humane, after all, sparing civilians as well as British soldiers during punitive expeditions in unruly colonial regions. But what conventional wisdom misses, and this book makes clear, is how the Royal Air Force’s (RAF) innovative approach actually worked—relying on British airmen on the ground at least as much as on airborne technology to control restive tribes an...
An original argument about the causes and consequences of political violence and the range of strategies employed.
The George W. Bush administration’s ambitious—even breathtaking—claims of unilateral executive authority raised deep concerns among constitutional scholars, civil libertarians, and ordinary citizens alike. But Bush’s attempts to assert his power are only the culmination of a near-thirty-year assault on the basic checks and balances of the U.S. government—a battle waged by presidents of both parties, and one that, as Peter M. Shane warns in Madison’s Nightmare, threatens to utterly subvert the founders’ vision of representative government. Tracing this tendency back to the first Reagan administration, Shane shows how this era of "aggressive presidentialism" has seen presidents e...
ÔThis is an important collection of scholarly essays that will illuminate positive legal developments and normative constitutionalist concerns in the expanding arena of secret government decisions. This book is indispensable reading for those concerned with constitutionalism, the rule of law and democracy as they bear on the tensions between secrecy and disclosure in government responses to terrorism.Õ Ð Vicki C. Jackson, Harvard University Law School, US ÔThis book contains the broadest and deepest analysis of the legal and policy issues that relate to secrecy and national security on one hand, and the imperatives of a functioning democracy on the other. The broadest because it brings t...
Explores the role of international legal scholars in the construction of legal knowledge, looking at examples from the cyberwar debate.