2013 Submitted Papers

This paper considers the application of Deterrence Theories to the Iranian nuclear agenda. Given the international community currently perceives Tehran to be seeking nuclear weapons, it is imperative to consider the implications of such action. Whilst not considering the veracity of either Iranian anti-nuclear rhetoric or the international community’s assertion of Iranian desires to achieve Nuclear Weapon State (NWS) status, this paper questions the application of Cold War theories of deterrence to the Middle East in the 21st century. Integral to theories of deterrence is the principle of rationality: Despite ideological differences between the US and USSR, both sides viewed each other as rational actors. Whilst not questioning whether Iranian foreign policy is pragmatic or irrational, this paper questions if deterrence can work if either side holds the other to be irrational. Numerous theories existed during the Cold War that attempted to explain the behaviour of actors engaged in a nuclear stand-off. In addition to application of Deterrence Theories in explaining Iran’s behaviour and nuclear balance within the Middle East, it must be questioned to what extent a religious dimension affects a NWS’s behaviour, with specific regard to the question of rationality.

The aim of this paper is to identify the interplay between transnational actors loosely connected under particular international institutions in East Asia. Most approaches to environmental governance in this area are not organized through formal international treaties (one exception is the ASEAN Haze Agreement) but through informal international frameworks such as the Acid Deposition Monitoring Network in East Asia (EANET) and the Water Environment Partnership in Asia (WEPA). This paper discusses the reason why international cooperative frameworks on most environmental issues are steered by network-based cooperation, particularly in East Asia. It will also examine what this tendency implies for approaches to environmental governance. In order to answer the research questions, theoretical frameworks of network analysis which have been recently discussed in the literature of global governance theory are employed for each case study of the above networks and for comparison between them. The analysis will reveal the differences in the formation and advancement of networks, including degree of openness and scale of connectivity to other frameworks.

This paper will undertake an examination of the external support dynamic upon the potency and longevity of insurgencies in a contemporary and historical context. The role of borders in conflicts has been pushed to the fore given the current acknowledgement of the permeation of arms and fighters over the Iraqi border from Iran, and over the Afghan border from Pakistan. This paper seeks to examine how the porosity of borders, as a consequence of globalisation or weak state control, aids insurgents and what measures the British military, historically and contemporaneously, have taken to 'secure' borders and seal insurgents off from external support. An appraisal of the current problems created by cross-border activity will be contextualised by the utilisation of historical examples stemming from past British counter-insurgency campaigns in Malaya (1948-60), Kenya (1952-60), Yemen (1962-67) and the early ‘Troubles’ in Northern Ireland (1969-79). This analysis will therefore harness the past in order to shed more light on the present problems of external influence on the longevity and potency of insurgencies.

This paper- part of a broader project on internationalism in foreign policy- explores the relationship between foreign policy and political legitimacy. In particular, it focuses on the possibilities for and limits to the articulation and implementation of an internationalist foreign policy agenda. While in international relations the limits of political possibility in terms of foreign policy is most frequently understood as referring to the ‘realities’ of world politics and the distribution of material power, the focus here is on the extent to which domestic audiences support or contest the articulation of an internationalist agenda. The latter is defined here as foreign policy that proceeds from the recognition of ethical obligation beyond the nation-state, and a commitment to active participation in the mechanisms and institutions of international society. I particularly seek to explore the contexts in which domestic populations are most likely to support an internationalist agenda, concluding here that the successful linkage of such policies to resonant narratives of national identity provides a powerful basis for enabling such an agenda to find purchase.

That a ‘national security state’ was built in the post-World War II period is a commonplace characterisation of the postwar US state. While there are differing interpretations of exactly what a national security state consists of (generically or in the specific case of the US), all demonstrate that the US national security state was an important shift in the focus of the US state, which allowed for a renewed (and militarised) internationalism. The paper focuses on such claims in order to theorise the specific varieties of militarism that emerged in postwar period, demonstrating that the US version was a species of militarism characterised as ‘liberal militarism’, that emerged due to a particular ideology of national security that triumphed in the postwar period. The importance of liberal militarism is not only in its external manifestations, but in how a broad ideology of national security implied a particularly liberal ordering of state and society, both internally and externally. ‘Liberal militarism’ was a particular product of the US state, but one that was formed in relation to both the needs of capital and geopolitics.

Who is responsible for tackling the complex global issue of climate change and what does this responsibility entail? Too often, climate change is designated as the responsibility of the market or, alternatively, of morality. Neither, it is argued here can produce the decisive action necessary. Economic solutions have been criticised for failing to secure real structural change. And individual ethical choices are ineffective without co-ordination. This paper suggests that assigning climate change to the market or to morality is a failure of political responsibility. Following Mouffe’s work on the political, climate change is understood as a political issue for which there is no one correct solution and no possibility of full consensus. A political decision - in which a difficult and contested choice is made between conflicting alternatives - is therefore vital. Only an explicitly political decision can underpin firm collective commitments. This paper, then, promotes a particular understanding of political responsibility with regards to climate change. Some understand political responsibility as collective responsibility, but I argue it is more than this. Rather it involves making decisions that can underpin collective and committed action, acknowledging that these decisions are needed and accepting that they will always be contested.

The proliferation of political memoirs in the latter half of the twentieth century has coincided with a distinct shift in the way that the British armed forces have been required to wage war. Contemporary British military history is one dominated by counter-insurgency warfare. The political management of such campaigns, however, is one aspect lacking in analysis. By utilising three of the most defining British counter-insurgency campaigns of the last 50 years – South Arabia/Yemen (1962-67), the first decade of the Northern Irish ‘Troubles’ (1969-79), and the conflict in Iraq (2003-09) – this article explores how the autobiographies of Harold Macmillan, Alec Douglas-Home, Harold Wilson, Edward Heath and Tony Blair depict their conduct of the respective campaigns and how they construct an interpretation of their leadership during times of irregular warfare. Close textual analysis of these memoirs reveals a recurring reluctance on behalf of Prime Ministers to write reflectively, or indeed honestly, about these protracted and bloody conflicts given what we now know through archival releases and alternative accounts.

This paper examines the pressures on teaching terrorism in the UK and some comparative examples. It focuses on the cases in the UK which have highlighted the threat to academic freedom. It draws on extensive empirical data on how UK universities have responded to pressures to limit academic freedom. The paper: a. Shows that the major threats are not questions of freedom of speech but academic freedom specifically; b. Analyses the concept of academic freedom in relation to this, arguing that this is intrinsically part of the battle as opposed to something that can just be analysed as a neutral concept. The paper concludes by arguing for the need for a broader picture and empirical account of threats to academic freedom.

This paper was developed as part of a working group set up to examine issues surrounding the teaching of terrorism and political violence at UK higher education institutions. The research used freedom of information legislation to assess the extent to which UK Universities have collaborated with, ignored or resisted various pressures resulting from state counter-terrorism policies and strategies. The paper uses this survey data to comment on the extent to which academic freedom is under threat in the UK. It concludes that whilst no other universities have developed administrative systems to monitor teaching materials (as was introduced at Nottingham) there are nevertheless some concerning trends. Few universities have developed systems, policies or procedures for dealing with potential actions taken against them under terrorism legislation and detailed information or advice on accessing ‘terrorist’ research materials appears to be extremely rare. Finally, whilst only a minority of universities have developed systems, policies or procedures in place for ‘preventing violent extremism’ a significant number have developed close cooperation and collaboration with state counter-terrorism policies.

This paper was developed as part of a working group set up to examine issues surrounding the teaching of terrorism and political violence at UK higher education institutions. The research used freedom of information legislation to assess the extent to which UK Universities have collaborated with, ignored or resisted various pressures resulting from state counter-terrorism policies and strategies. The paper uses this survey data to comment on the extent to which academic freedom is under threat in the UK. It concludes that whilst no other universities have developed administrative systems to monitor teaching materials (as was introduced at Nottingham) there are nevertheless some concerning trends. Few universities have developed systems, policies or procedures for dealing with potential actions taken against them under terrorism legislation and detailed information or advice on accessing ‘terrorist’ research materials appears to be extremely rare. Finally, whilst only a minority of universities have developed systems, policies or procedures in place for ‘preventing violent extremism’ a significant number have developed close cooperation and collaboration with state counter-terrorism policies.

Studies on terrorism have traditionally focused on non-state actors who direct violence against liberal states. Such studies have also tended to focus on political motivations and, therefore, have neglected the economic functions of terrorism. This article challenges the divorce of the political and economic spheres by highlighting how states can use terrorism to realise interconnected political and economic goals. To demonstrate this, we take the case of the paramilitary demobilisation process in Colombia and show how it relates to the US-Colombian free trade agreement (FTA). We argue that the demobilisation process fulfils a dual role. Firstly, the process aims to improve the image of the Colombian government required to pass the controversial FTA through US Congress in order to protect large amounts of US investment in the country. Secondly, the demobilisation process serves to mask clear continuities in paramilitary terror which serve mutually supportive political and economic functions for US investment in Colombia.